<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_21_2115249</id>
	<title>Microsoft, Other Rivals Slam Google Chrome OS</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258796580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Microsoft is, predictably, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141197/Microsoft\_other\_rivals\_slam\_Google\_Chrome\_OS">not all that impressed by Google Inc.'s demonstration of its upcoming Chrome OS</a>. 'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said. 'From our perspective, however, our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works &mdash; across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs &mdash; <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141166/Ballmer\_Windows\_7\_sells\_twice\_as\_fast\_as\_past\_operating\_systems">purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7</a> as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.' But neither were potential rivals who make Linux and instant-on operating systems. Chrome OS claimed 7-second boot times and the ability to run Web apps within another 3 seconds, which failed to impress Woody Hobbs, president and CEO of Phoenix Technologies, a long-time BIOS software maker that has re-invented itself with a <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128818">Linux-based instant-on OS called HyperSpace</a>. 'Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second. Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs said. 'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks. You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone &mdash; a press of a button and you are "on."' Mark Lee, CEO of DeviceVM Inc., said Google's favoritism towards its own browser and Web apps could rub some users the wrong way, especially those outside of the US. 'In China, users prefer Baidu, not Google,' Lee said. DeviceVM's Splashtop platform boots into Firefox within seconds and uses Yahoo or Baidu as default search engines instead of Google."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft is , predictably , not all that impressed by Google Inc. 's demonstration of its upcoming Chrome OS .
'From what was shared , it appears to be in the early stages of development, ' a Microsoft spokeswoman said .
'From our perspective , however , our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works    across the Web and on the desktop , and on all sizes and types of PCs    purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we 've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time .
' But neither were potential rivals who make Linux and instant-on operating systems .
Chrome OS claimed 7-second boot times and the ability to run Web apps within another 3 seconds , which failed to impress Woody Hobbs , president and CEO of Phoenix Technologies , a long-time BIOS software maker that has re-invented itself with a Linux-based instant-on OS called HyperSpace .
'Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second .
Seven seconds is too long, ' Hobbs said .
'There is no such thing as " cold boot " for today 's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks .
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone    a press of a button and you are " on .
" ' Mark Lee , CEO of DeviceVM Inc. , said Google 's favoritism towards its own browser and Web apps could rub some users the wrong way , especially those outside of the US .
'In China , users prefer Baidu , not Google, ' Lee said .
DeviceVM 's Splashtop platform boots into Firefox within seconds and uses Yahoo or Baidu as default search engines instead of Google .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft is, predictably, not all that impressed by Google Inc.'s demonstration of its upcoming Chrome OS.
'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said.
'From our perspective, however, our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works — across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs — purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.
' But neither were potential rivals who make Linux and instant-on operating systems.
Chrome OS claimed 7-second boot times and the ability to run Web apps within another 3 seconds, which failed to impress Woody Hobbs, president and CEO of Phoenix Technologies, a long-time BIOS software maker that has re-invented itself with a Linux-based instant-on OS called HyperSpace.
'Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second.
Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs said.
'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks.
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone — a press of a button and you are "on.
"' Mark Lee, CEO of DeviceVM Inc., said Google's favoritism towards its own browser and Web apps could rub some users the wrong way, especially those outside of the US.
'In China, users prefer Baidu, not Google,' Lee said.
DeviceVM's Splashtop platform boots into Firefox within seconds and uses Yahoo or Baidu as default search engines instead of Google.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188962</id>
	<title>Typical Microsoft FUD</title>
	<author>twoears</author>
	<datestamp>1258805520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks. Microsoft must have a lot of bricks, because Windows has been broken forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who live in glass houses should n't throw bricks .
Microsoft must have a lot of bricks , because Windows has been broken forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.
Microsoft must have a lot of bricks, because Windows has been broken forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30194282</id>
	<title>Seven seconds is too long??</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258912140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh... really now..</p><p>Also, not that I'm interested in 'yet another webOS', but i find it sort of interesting that all the big players are slamming this so quickly. Are they scared?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh... really now..Also , not that I 'm interested in 'yet another webOS ' , but i find it sort of interesting that all the big players are slamming this so quickly .
Are they scared ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh... really now..Also, not that I'm interested in 'yet another webOS', but i find it sort of interesting that all the big players are slamming this so quickly.
Are they scared?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188258</id>
	<title>lol smartphones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258800900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone &mdash; a press of a button and you are "on."</p></div></blockquote><p>Has he booted a smartphone recently? It takes around 30 seconds for my Nokia smartphone to boot up. Of course, the point he's probably making is that smartphones are always on and therefore always accessible, but to achieve that surely you'd instead have to work towards reducing the idle power consumption of PCs...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone    a press of a button and you are " on .
" Has he booted a smartphone recently ?
It takes around 30 seconds for my Nokia smartphone to boot up .
Of course , the point he 's probably making is that smartphones are always on and therefore always accessible , but to achieve that surely you 'd instead have to work towards reducing the idle power consumption of PCs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone — a press of a button and you are "on.
"Has he booted a smartphone recently?
It takes around 30 seconds for my Nokia smartphone to boot up.
Of course, the point he's probably making is that smartphones are always on and therefore always accessible, but to achieve that surely you'd instead have to work towards reducing the idle power consumption of PCs...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189466</id>
	<title>Re:Car Analogy for MS Spokesperson</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1258809780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...I'm a little skeptical that anyone's seriously itching hard for a minimal OS capable of running only a web browser.</p></div></blockquote><p>They're called subnotebooks.  Sure, you can run other apps, and people generally do now.  But, what apps are those?  How likely is it that Google will implement web-based versions of most of those apps?</p><p>Btw, I can think of another great reason for such a minimal OS, on the same order as subnotebooks:  cheap developing country computers that are relatively secure.  Cyber-cafes are notorious when it comes to security, and while access to a computer is a reason people use them, more and more people use them for the cheap internet connection, not the actual computer.  I can readily imagine Google pushing for even cheaper subnotebooks in markets like China and India as web access expands; and unlikely Microsoft or Apple, they don't really have to worry about piracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'm a little skeptical that anyone 's seriously itching hard for a minimal OS capable of running only a web browser.They 're called subnotebooks .
Sure , you can run other apps , and people generally do now .
But , what apps are those ?
How likely is it that Google will implement web-based versions of most of those apps ? Btw , I can think of another great reason for such a minimal OS , on the same order as subnotebooks : cheap developing country computers that are relatively secure .
Cyber-cafes are notorious when it comes to security , and while access to a computer is a reason people use them , more and more people use them for the cheap internet connection , not the actual computer .
I can readily imagine Google pushing for even cheaper subnotebooks in markets like China and India as web access expands ; and unlikely Microsoft or Apple , they do n't really have to worry about piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'm a little skeptical that anyone's seriously itching hard for a minimal OS capable of running only a web browser.They're called subnotebooks.
Sure, you can run other apps, and people generally do now.
But, what apps are those?
How likely is it that Google will implement web-based versions of most of those apps?Btw, I can think of another great reason for such a minimal OS, on the same order as subnotebooks:  cheap developing country computers that are relatively secure.
Cyber-cafes are notorious when it comes to security, and while access to a computer is a reason people use them, more and more people use them for the cheap internet connection, not the actual computer.
I can readily imagine Google pushing for even cheaper subnotebooks in markets like China and India as web access expands; and unlikely Microsoft or Apple, they don't really have to worry about piracy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30195686</id>
	<title>Re:Google has lots of time to get it right</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1258922700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I might be wrong, but here's how I see it..  Android came out with the G1 on T-Mobile which had the smallest 3G network.. The OS was there, and it was good, but the other handset manufacturers and major carriers in the US had their own things going on in the US.. AT&amp;T was not going to compete against their own cash cow.. Sprint and Verizon are CDMA, and they had their heads up their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... So what happened ?.. Europe happened.. The iPhone did ok in Europe, but they didn't drink as much of the Apple Koolaide as the US did.. HTC came out with the Magic, and then the Hero.. and they were hits, and people here in the US finally questioned why we didn't have them.. Sprint and Verizon finally woke up, and T-Mobile continued their expansion of their network and Android offerings.. and now it's exciting.. So interesting, that now even AT&amp;T will have to offer Android at some point. The product is of course improving all the time, but it was always there, and always good.. It's just that now you have more people on board, and new hardware coming out all the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be wrong , but here 's how I see it.. Android came out with the G1 on T-Mobile which had the smallest 3G network.. The OS was there , and it was good , but the other handset manufacturers and major carriers in the US had their own things going on in the US.. AT&amp;T was not going to compete against their own cash cow.. Sprint and Verizon are CDMA , and they had their heads up their ... So what happened ? . .
Europe happened.. The iPhone did ok in Europe , but they did n't drink as much of the Apple Koolaide as the US did.. HTC came out with the Magic , and then the Hero.. and they were hits , and people here in the US finally questioned why we did n't have them.. Sprint and Verizon finally woke up , and T-Mobile continued their expansion of their network and Android offerings.. and now it 's exciting.. So interesting , that now even AT&amp;T will have to offer Android at some point .
The product is of course improving all the time , but it was always there , and always good.. It 's just that now you have more people on board , and new hardware coming out all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be wrong, but here's how I see it..  Android came out with the G1 on T-Mobile which had the smallest 3G network.. The OS was there, and it was good, but the other handset manufacturers and major carriers in the US had their own things going on in the US.. AT&amp;T was not going to compete against their own cash cow.. Sprint and Verizon are CDMA, and they had their heads up their ... So what happened ?..
Europe happened.. The iPhone did ok in Europe, but they didn't drink as much of the Apple Koolaide as the US did.. HTC came out with the Magic, and then the Hero.. and they were hits, and people here in the US finally questioned why we didn't have them.. Sprint and Verizon finally woke up, and T-Mobile continued their expansion of their network and Android offerings.. and now it's exciting.. So interesting, that now even AT&amp;T will have to offer Android at some point.
The product is of course improving all the time, but it was always there, and always good.. It's just that now you have more people on board, and new hardware coming out all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30194342</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258912500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But almost everyone is using a strawman (as Microsoft is). The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing. It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc. &gt;</p> </div><p>But you forget that Microsoft is considering ( already? ) moving in that direction with the desktop, so while its not an issue today, if Google gets there first, it will hinder their long term roadmap plans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But almost everyone is using a strawman ( as Microsoft is ) .
The point is not to replace Windows , it 's an OS for web surfing .
It 's not for playing World of Warcraft , doing heavy photo editing , video editing , etc .
&gt; But you forget that Microsoft is considering ( already ?
) moving in that direction with the desktop , so while its not an issue today , if Google gets there first , it will hinder their long term roadmap plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But almost everyone is using a strawman (as Microsoft is).
The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing.
It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc.
&gt; But you forget that Microsoft is considering ( already?
) moving in that direction with the desktop, so while its not an issue today, if Google gets there first, it will hinder their long term roadmap plans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189334</id>
	<title>smartphone boot times are worse</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258808940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks. You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone &mdash; a press of a button and you are "on."'</p> </div><p>Cold booting a phone will not load in less than 7 seconds or will certainly take more than 10 seconds. Comparing a phone would be like comparing the Chrome OS coming out of hibernate and he is assuming that time is the same as a cold boot.
<br> <br>
Not that it really matters, the 3G (or less) connection is the slowest part of smartphone computing and Chrome OS will unfortunately run into this problem as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'There is no such thing as " cold boot " for today 's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks .
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone    a press of a button and you are " on .
" ' Cold booting a phone will not load in less than 7 seconds or will certainly take more than 10 seconds .
Comparing a phone would be like comparing the Chrome OS coming out of hibernate and he is assuming that time is the same as a cold boot .
Not that it really matters , the 3G ( or less ) connection is the slowest part of smartphone computing and Chrome OS will unfortunately run into this problem as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks.
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone — a press of a button and you are "on.
"' Cold booting a phone will not load in less than 7 seconds or will certainly take more than 10 seconds.
Comparing a phone would be like comparing the Chrome OS coming out of hibernate and he is assuming that time is the same as a cold boot.
Not that it really matters, the 3G (or less) connection is the slowest part of smartphone computing and Chrome OS will unfortunately run into this problem as well.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193018</id>
	<title>Re:ChromeOS == crippleware.</title>
	<author>fredrik70</author>
	<datestamp>1258902360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh, I sure their webapps will work without a network connection, using Google gears, after all, you can use google mail and google docs offline right now with gears, now OTHER peoples webapps might not work offline, at least not until they added gears functionality to it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh , I sure their webapps will work without a network connection , using Google gears , after all , you can use google mail and google docs offline right now with gears , now OTHER peoples webapps might not work offline , at least not until they added gears functionality to it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh, I sure their webapps will work without a network connection, using Google gears, after all, you can use google mail and google docs offline right now with gears, now OTHER peoples webapps might not work offline, at least not until they added gears functionality to it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188476</id>
	<title>Like your phone is just 'on'?  bah.</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1258802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure what type of phone ol' Woody Hobbs uses... but I think that's kind of a flawed analogy at best.  Over the years, my phones from a cold start have taken easily 5 - 10 seconds to post up (...and that includes the gracious amount of Verizon Wireless <i>foo</i> that flashes around at the beginning)  Regardless of the pounding Chrome OS is taking, 7 second boot up time with instant access is killer.  Really that's not any less/more than my Acer AspireOne + LinuxMint coming back up from hibernation mode.  I'm really anxious to give Chrome OS a spin.  Just like people argue for the sake of arguing, I think it's safe to say people also ridicule for the sake of ridiculing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what type of phone ol ' Woody Hobbs uses... but I think that 's kind of a flawed analogy at best .
Over the years , my phones from a cold start have taken easily 5 - 10 seconds to post up ( ...and that includes the gracious amount of Verizon Wireless foo that flashes around at the beginning ) Regardless of the pounding Chrome OS is taking , 7 second boot up time with instant access is killer .
Really that 's not any less/more than my Acer AspireOne + LinuxMint coming back up from hibernation mode .
I 'm really anxious to give Chrome OS a spin .
Just like people argue for the sake of arguing , I think it 's safe to say people also ridicule for the sake of ridiculing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what type of phone ol' Woody Hobbs uses... but I think that's kind of a flawed analogy at best.
Over the years, my phones from a cold start have taken easily 5 - 10 seconds to post up (...and that includes the gracious amount of Verizon Wireless foo that flashes around at the beginning)  Regardless of the pounding Chrome OS is taking, 7 second boot up time with instant access is killer.
Really that's not any less/more than my Acer AspireOne + LinuxMint coming back up from hibernation mode.
I'm really anxious to give Chrome OS a spin.
Just like people argue for the sake of arguing, I think it's safe to say people also ridicule for the sake of ridiculing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191406</id>
	<title>Chrome OS is not an OS</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1258830840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tom,

</p><p>There have been some challenges in defining the differences, but Chrome OS is not an operating system.  It's a distribution that includes the Linux operating system that adds its value in the user interface space.  The underlying operating system is Linux.  Chrome OS is a shell.

</p><p>Its scope is every environment the base OS applies to, and that's going to stretch from the firmware of your wireless router to the TOP500.  Its target market is grandma, but it's open source to the point where builds are now available for every Virtual environment and we're not 48 hours in yet.

</p><p>In short by opposing something that's not yet defined, you're destroying your cred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tom , There have been some challenges in defining the differences , but Chrome OS is not an operating system .
It 's a distribution that includes the Linux operating system that adds its value in the user interface space .
The underlying operating system is Linux .
Chrome OS is a shell .
Its scope is every environment the base OS applies to , and that 's going to stretch from the firmware of your wireless router to the TOP500 .
Its target market is grandma , but it 's open source to the point where builds are now available for every Virtual environment and we 're not 48 hours in yet .
In short by opposing something that 's not yet defined , you 're destroying your cred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tom,

There have been some challenges in defining the differences, but Chrome OS is not an operating system.
It's a distribution that includes the Linux operating system that adds its value in the user interface space.
The underlying operating system is Linux.
Chrome OS is a shell.
Its scope is every environment the base OS applies to, and that's going to stretch from the firmware of your wireless router to the TOP500.
Its target market is grandma, but it's open source to the point where builds are now available for every Virtual environment and we're not 48 hours in yet.
In short by opposing something that's not yet defined, you're destroying your cred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188630</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1258803540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``It's an email appliance OS that lets you read the web pages people link to in their emails.''</p><p>In other words, it's exactly what mom and pop need. Especially if someone can make it work without needing a security expert to keep it working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` It 's an email appliance OS that lets you read the web pages people link to in their emails .
''In other words , it 's exactly what mom and pop need .
Especially if someone can make it work without needing a security expert to keep it working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``It's an email appliance OS that lets you read the web pages people link to in their emails.
''In other words, it's exactly what mom and pop need.
Especially if someone can make it work without needing a security expert to keep it working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190828</id>
	<title>Smartphones are not instant-on devices</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1258822980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[quote]<br>Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second. Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs said. 'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks. You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone &amp;mdash; a press of a button and you are "on."' Mark Lee, CEO of DeviceVM Inc.<br>[/quote]<br><br>I'd like to see a smartphone that boots in one second. Since the phone is already *on*, the netbook will be at a disadvantage if it has to be booted first.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second .
Seven seconds is too long, ' Hobbs said .
'There is no such thing as " cold boot " for today 's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks .
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone    a press of a button and you are " on .
" ' Mark Lee , CEO of DeviceVM Inc. [ /quote ] I 'd like to see a smartphone that boots in one second .
Since the phone is already * on * , the netbook will be at a disadvantage if it has to be booted first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second.
Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs said.
'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks.
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone — a press of a button and you are "on.
"' Mark Lee, CEO of DeviceVM Inc.[/quote]I'd like to see a smartphone that boots in one second.
Since the phone is already *on*, the netbook will be at a disadvantage if it has to be booted first.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189294</id>
	<title>It's a browser appliance.</title>
	<author>funkboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258808580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://funk.nu/pix/chromium-os.jpg" title="funk.nu" rel="nofollow">Easy enough to make it go in VirtualBox</a> [funk.nu]</p><p>Folks are making a big deal about this as though it were an OS.  It's not.</p><p>It's a browser appliance.</p><p>When all you need is a browser that will boot from a little bit of flash memory, it's just the ticket.  This is perfect for just about any public terminal.  Also nice to have around so that when a family member's old windows machine gets all virused up or the hard drive dies you can just plug this in and get them back online.</p><p>It is very, very easy to use.  Just log in with your google account, and you're in business.  It boots and loads the browser from a read-only partition and is thus uncrashable and incorruptable.  Embedding this on ARM daughtercard notebooks like Dell's Latitude ON machines could easily give somewhere north of 10 hours of wifi browsing time.</p><p>It's still very alpha at the moment (not too hard to freeze it), but it's got a lot of potential.  I can see myself carrying this around on a USB key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy enough to make it go in VirtualBox [ funk.nu ] Folks are making a big deal about this as though it were an OS .
It 's not.It 's a browser appliance.When all you need is a browser that will boot from a little bit of flash memory , it 's just the ticket .
This is perfect for just about any public terminal .
Also nice to have around so that when a family member 's old windows machine gets all virused up or the hard drive dies you can just plug this in and get them back online.It is very , very easy to use .
Just log in with your google account , and you 're in business .
It boots and loads the browser from a read-only partition and is thus uncrashable and incorruptable .
Embedding this on ARM daughtercard notebooks like Dell 's Latitude ON machines could easily give somewhere north of 10 hours of wifi browsing time.It 's still very alpha at the moment ( not too hard to freeze it ) , but it 's got a lot of potential .
I can see myself carrying this around on a USB key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy enough to make it go in VirtualBox [funk.nu]Folks are making a big deal about this as though it were an OS.
It's not.It's a browser appliance.When all you need is a browser that will boot from a little bit of flash memory, it's just the ticket.
This is perfect for just about any public terminal.
Also nice to have around so that when a family member's old windows machine gets all virused up or the hard drive dies you can just plug this in and get them back online.It is very, very easy to use.
Just log in with your google account, and you're in business.
It boots and loads the browser from a read-only partition and is thus uncrashable and incorruptable.
Embedding this on ARM daughtercard notebooks like Dell's Latitude ON machines could easily give somewhere north of 10 hours of wifi browsing time.It's still very alpha at the moment (not too hard to freeze it), but it's got a lot of potential.
I can see myself carrying this around on a USB key.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191756</id>
	<title>People Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258921980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are totally missing the point here on slashdot.  I think this will be a huge hit with the people that are still computer illiterate, or have a hard time learning standard computer functions (elderly come to mind, as well as 3rd world residents).  I see that Chrome OS will likely make things a whole lot easier on people with its basic functionality.</p><p>For all those people that want to roar back with, "they can just get a mac."  Go shove it.  Mac isnt the best in productivity and not everybody can afford one.  Even though Macs OS is pretty polished (read pretty), it is still not as simple as what I have seen with Chrome OS.  And yes I have compiled it and ran it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are totally missing the point here on slashdot .
I think this will be a huge hit with the people that are still computer illiterate , or have a hard time learning standard computer functions ( elderly come to mind , as well as 3rd world residents ) .
I see that Chrome OS will likely make things a whole lot easier on people with its basic functionality.For all those people that want to roar back with , " they can just get a mac .
" Go shove it .
Mac isnt the best in productivity and not everybody can afford one .
Even though Macs OS is pretty polished ( read pretty ) , it is still not as simple as what I have seen with Chrome OS .
And yes I have compiled it and ran it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are totally missing the point here on slashdot.
I think this will be a huge hit with the people that are still computer illiterate, or have a hard time learning standard computer functions (elderly come to mind, as well as 3rd world residents).
I see that Chrome OS will likely make things a whole lot easier on people with its basic functionality.For all those people that want to roar back with, "they can just get a mac.
"  Go shove it.
Mac isnt the best in productivity and not everybody can afford one.
Even though Macs OS is pretty polished (read pretty), it is still not as simple as what I have seen with Chrome OS.
And yes I have compiled it and ran it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189456</id>
	<title>Re:Just works?</title>
	<author>ThePengwin</author>
	<datestamp>1258809720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>x86 and x64. But why does 7 need to be on ARM processors? i thought thats what they made Windows CE for, which AFAIK runs on ARM processors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>x86 and x64 .
But why does 7 need to be on ARM processors ?
i thought thats what they made Windows CE for , which AFAIK runs on ARM processors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>x86 and x64.
But why does 7 need to be on ARM processors?
i thought thats what they made Windows CE for, which AFAIK runs on ARM processors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189392</id>
	<title>Re:ChromeOS == crippleware.</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1258809360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>don't have to buy a separate keyboard, mouse or screen, portable</p></div></blockquote><p>ChromeOS is obviously intended for netbooks, which already have that.</p><blockquote><div><p>always-on</p></div></blockquote><p>One of the main features of ARM CPUs is the low energy usage. Combined with auto-suspend when not in use, and it can get full days of autonomy.</p><blockquote><div><p>can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time, apps work offline</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://gears.google.com/" title="google.com">http://gears.google.com/</a> [google.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>more local storage</p></div></blockquote><p>Current SSD based netbooks don't have much storage space, and yet have been selling nicely.</p><blockquote><div><p>can make phone calls, videos</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Voice" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Voice</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't have to buy a separate keyboard , mouse or screen , portableChromeOS is obviously intended for netbooks , which already have that.always-onOne of the main features of ARM CPUs is the low energy usage .
Combined with auto-suspend when not in use , and it can get full days of autonomy.can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time , apps work offlinehttp : //gears.google.com/ [ google.com ] more local storageCurrent SSD based netbooks do n't have much storage space , and yet have been selling nicely.can make phone calls , videoshttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google \ _Voice [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't have to buy a separate keyboard, mouse or screen, portableChromeOS is obviously intended for netbooks, which already have that.always-onOne of the main features of ARM CPUs is the low energy usage.
Combined with auto-suspend when not in use, and it can get full days of autonomy.can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time, apps work offlinehttp://gears.google.com/ [google.com] more local storageCurrent SSD based netbooks don't have much storage space, and yet have been selling nicely.can make phone calls, videoshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Voice [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188480</id>
	<title>Re:"instant on"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yeah thanks we know."  (click)</p><p>The new Amiga OS 4.1 build loads in just 5 seconds (10 seconds on an older, slower HDD).  Maybe they ought to port that over to Intel and compete directly against Microsoft and Google.  Shutdown time ix 0.  (just flip the power switch off)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yeah thanks we know .
" ( click ) The new Amiga OS 4.1 build loads in just 5 seconds ( 10 seconds on an older , slower HDD ) .
Maybe they ought to port that over to Intel and compete directly against Microsoft and Google .
Shutdown time ix 0 .
( just flip the power switch off )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yeah thanks we know.
"  (click)The new Amiga OS 4.1 build loads in just 5 seconds (10 seconds on an older, slower HDD).
Maybe they ought to port that over to Intel and compete directly against Microsoft and Google.
Shutdown time ix 0.
(just flip the power switch off)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189974</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258814040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really. My mom and pop - aged 79 and 76 - use Microsoft Word and Excel, Quicken, Turbo Tax and Photoshop Elements and several other PC applications. Yes, there are Web-based versions of most of those products but they don't work as well and only work when online (still). A relatively small number of wealthier people will buy Chrome OS devices as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th machine but they'll continue to use PC's and Macs for everything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
My mom and pop - aged 79 and 76 - use Microsoft Word and Excel , Quicken , Turbo Tax and Photoshop Elements and several other PC applications .
Yes , there are Web-based versions of most of those products but they do n't work as well and only work when online ( still ) .
A relatively small number of wealthier people will buy Chrome OS devices as a 2nd , 3rd or 4th machine but they 'll continue to use PC 's and Macs for everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
My mom and pop - aged 79 and 76 - use Microsoft Word and Excel, Quicken, Turbo Tax and Photoshop Elements and several other PC applications.
Yes, there are Web-based versions of most of those products but they don't work as well and only work when online (still).
A relatively small number of wealthier people will buy Chrome OS devices as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th machine but they'll continue to use PC's and Macs for everything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192640</id>
	<title>Re:Car Analogy for MS Spokesperson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258897980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet you do not work in enterprise IT.</p><p>You are probably thinking the same way the people who rode horse and buggies thought - who would ever want to upgrade ( worked well for desk phones too )<br>I am typing this on a Vista computer - using only my browsers - when I finish this I may read some work email - using only my browser.<br>Perhaps in a bit I will check our help desk tickets with a Citrix plugin for my browser where if I need to run excel I will hit it on my citrix farm ( or use google apps if it is personal )</p><p>I have been online for an hour and have used exactly zero non-browser apps.  I think the future you can't see is a lot closer than you think.</p><p>I work in a company with about 4,000 employees on three shifts. 95\% could use a browser based computer where are the heavy lifting ( citrix, TS ) was done in the backend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet you do not work in enterprise IT.You are probably thinking the same way the people who rode horse and buggies thought - who would ever want to upgrade ( worked well for desk phones too ) I am typing this on a Vista computer - using only my browsers - when I finish this I may read some work email - using only my browser.Perhaps in a bit I will check our help desk tickets with a Citrix plugin for my browser where if I need to run excel I will hit it on my citrix farm ( or use google apps if it is personal ) I have been online for an hour and have used exactly zero non-browser apps .
I think the future you ca n't see is a lot closer than you think.I work in a company with about 4,000 employees on three shifts .
95 \ % could use a browser based computer where are the heavy lifting ( citrix , TS ) was done in the backend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet you do not work in enterprise IT.You are probably thinking the same way the people who rode horse and buggies thought - who would ever want to upgrade ( worked well for desk phones too )I am typing this on a Vista computer - using only my browsers - when I finish this I may read some work email - using only my browser.Perhaps in a bit I will check our help desk tickets with a Citrix plugin for my browser where if I need to run excel I will hit it on my citrix farm ( or use google apps if it is personal )I have been online for an hour and have used exactly zero non-browser apps.
I think the future you can't see is a lot closer than you think.I work in a company with about 4,000 employees on three shifts.
95\% could use a browser based computer where are the heavy lifting ( citrix, TS ) was done in the backend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192276</id>
	<title>Baidu can be used just fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258889940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" 'In China, users prefer Baidu, not Google,'"</p><p>Clearly he hasn't used Chrome, else he would know it graciously asks you what search engine you want to use before you start, defaulting to your OS's default (which is normaly microsoft)<br>Chrome OS was even demoed using microsofts web-apps, not Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'In China , users prefer Baidu , not Google, ' " Clearly he has n't used Chrome , else he would know it graciously asks you what search engine you want to use before you start , defaulting to your OS 's default ( which is normaly microsoft ) Chrome OS was even demoed using microsofts web-apps , not Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" 'In China, users prefer Baidu, not Google,'"Clearly he hasn't used Chrome, else he would know it graciously asks you what search engine you want to use before you start, defaulting to your OS's default (which is normaly microsoft)Chrome OS was even demoed using microsofts web-apps, not Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190032</id>
	<title>Re:The point</title>
	<author>notaprguy</author>
	<datestamp>1258814400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, why not spend $300 on a netbook running Windows 7 which supports any Web app and 10's of thousands of PC apps?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , why not spend $ 300 on a netbook running Windows 7 which supports any Web app and 10 's of thousands of PC apps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, why not spend $300 on a netbook running Windows 7 which supports any Web app and 10's of thousands of PC apps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191658</id>
	<title>I want a machine that does browser everything ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258920600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because I have found an existing need. SHE is my mother-in-law, and it's the perfect solution for her, because she can browse, but can't seem to do anything else worth a damn on her computer. GoogleDocs and internet-mail for her, is 100\% of her required feature set. End of story. And some remote network devices have been fully configurable using browser interfaces for a long time already, I don't see any reason why an interface can't be built for the trivial items left that my mother-in-law maybe *might* want to reconfigure on her new machine.</p><p>Google is NOT solving a problem that doesn't exist. Google is CREATING a new market with a new product, just like we saw with the iPod phenomenon.</p><p>Someone gonna come hit you with the clue stick soon - this is going to be MASSIVE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because I have found an existing need .
SHE is my mother-in-law , and it 's the perfect solution for her , because she can browse , but ca n't seem to do anything else worth a damn on her computer .
GoogleDocs and internet-mail for her , is 100 \ % of her required feature set .
End of story .
And some remote network devices have been fully configurable using browser interfaces for a long time already , I do n't see any reason why an interface ca n't be built for the trivial items left that my mother-in-law maybe * might * want to reconfigure on her new machine.Google is NOT solving a problem that does n't exist .
Google is CREATING a new market with a new product , just like we saw with the iPod phenomenon.Someone gon na come hit you with the clue stick soon - this is going to be MASSIVE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because I have found an existing need.
SHE is my mother-in-law, and it's the perfect solution for her, because she can browse, but can't seem to do anything else worth a damn on her computer.
GoogleDocs and internet-mail for her, is 100\% of her required feature set.
End of story.
And some remote network devices have been fully configurable using browser interfaces for a long time already, I don't see any reason why an interface can't be built for the trivial items left that my mother-in-law maybe *might* want to reconfigure on her new machine.Google is NOT solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Google is CREATING a new market with a new product, just like we saw with the iPod phenomenon.Someone gonna come hit you with the clue stick soon - this is going to be MASSIVE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189014</id>
	<title>Re:Many non-rivals also aren't impressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258805880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usenet - the first cloud application?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usenet - the first cloud application ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usenet - the first cloud application?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188372</id>
	<title>Surprise!</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258801560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The companies that will take a direct hit when Chrome OS gets released commented that it will be bad. Amazing.<br><br>Anyway, there were some constructive comments. Saying that they should improve and boot in a second instead of 7, as they are actually doing, sounds to me like positive feedback. And if google or the community can't make boot Chrome as fast because of design choices, would be nice to have HyperSpace or SplashTop in normal computers/notebooks and chrome in specialized netbooks, the market is wide enough for all, and the consumers will win at the end. And, who knows, could be more feedback between all those fast booting linux all along chrome os development and advancements made in that area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The companies that will take a direct hit when Chrome OS gets released commented that it will be bad .
Amazing.Anyway , there were some constructive comments .
Saying that they should improve and boot in a second instead of 7 , as they are actually doing , sounds to me like positive feedback .
And if google or the community ca n't make boot Chrome as fast because of design choices , would be nice to have HyperSpace or SplashTop in normal computers/notebooks and chrome in specialized netbooks , the market is wide enough for all , and the consumers will win at the end .
And , who knows , could be more feedback between all those fast booting linux all along chrome os development and advancements made in that area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The companies that will take a direct hit when Chrome OS gets released commented that it will be bad.
Amazing.Anyway, there were some constructive comments.
Saying that they should improve and boot in a second instead of 7, as they are actually doing, sounds to me like positive feedback.
And if google or the community can't make boot Chrome as fast because of design choices, would be nice to have HyperSpace or SplashTop in normal computers/notebooks and chrome in specialized netbooks, the market is wide enough for all, and the consumers will win at the end.
And, who knows, could be more feedback between all those fast booting linux all along chrome os development and advancements made in that area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192056</id>
	<title>I did a little test</title>
	<author>ivothamdrup</author>
	<datestamp>1258886040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did a little test and found out that my WinXP boots up in 24 seconds, whereas my Nokia E71 smartphone boots up in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... 30 seconds.
Last time I saw a cell phone boot up immediately after pressing the power button was probably in 2001.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a little test and found out that my WinXP boots up in 24 seconds , whereas my Nokia E71 smartphone boots up in .... 30 seconds .
Last time I saw a cell phone boot up immediately after pressing the power button was probably in 2001 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a little test and found out that my WinXP boots up in 24 seconds, whereas my Nokia E71 smartphone boots up in .... 30 seconds.
Last time I saw a cell phone boot up immediately after pressing the power button was probably in 2001.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189304</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1258808640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of people may not remember this right now, but Chrome OS is the embodiment of what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net was actually supposed to be.  Dot Net was the wave of the future, where all applications lived on the internet.  It was supposed to be the cloud before the term cloud even existed.<br> <br>
Then Microsoft apparently never figured out how to do it, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net ended up just being a moderately cool API, with this really weird combined runtime system.<br> <br>
Now I imagine there are people at Microsoft who are saying, "if only we had done it right back then" and others who are saying, "dang I hope this doesn't take off"  and probably a few who are gloating, thinking, "I told you so."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people may not remember this right now , but Chrome OS is the embodiment of what .net was actually supposed to be .
Dot Net was the wave of the future , where all applications lived on the internet .
It was supposed to be the cloud before the term cloud even existed .
Then Microsoft apparently never figured out how to do it , and .net ended up just being a moderately cool API , with this really weird combined runtime system .
Now I imagine there are people at Microsoft who are saying , " if only we had done it right back then " and others who are saying , " dang I hope this does n't take off " and probably a few who are gloating , thinking , " I told you so .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people may not remember this right now, but Chrome OS is the embodiment of what .net was actually supposed to be.
Dot Net was the wave of the future, where all applications lived on the internet.
It was supposed to be the cloud before the term cloud even existed.
Then Microsoft apparently never figured out how to do it, and .net ended up just being a moderately cool API, with this really weird combined runtime system.
Now I imagine there are people at Microsoft who are saying, "if only we had done it right back then" and others who are saying, "dang I hope this doesn't take off"  and probably a few who are gloating, thinking, "I told you so.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190012</id>
	<title>Will there be a Google ChromeOS E version?</title>
	<author>cjjjer</author>
	<datestamp>1258814340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Europe, Microsoft has to sell a Windows 7 [insert version here] E without any bundled browser.....

I wonder how Google will get around this or will it be another double standard in this industry "just because".</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Europe , Microsoft has to sell a Windows 7 [ insert version here ] E without any bundled browser.... . I wonder how Google will get around this or will it be another double standard in this industry " just because " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Europe, Microsoft has to sell a Windows 7 [insert version here] E without any bundled browser.....

I wonder how Google will get around this or will it be another double standard in this industry "just because".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188446</id>
	<title>The point</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1258802160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't get the point.  Everything Chrome OS runs can already be run by any other OS, so why not just use some other Linux distro that's not restricted to web apps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't get the point .
Everything Chrome OS runs can already be run by any other OS , so why not just use some other Linux distro that 's not restricted to web apps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't get the point.
Everything Chrome OS runs can already be run by any other OS, so why not just use some other Linux distro that's not restricted to web apps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188862</id>
	<title>7 Seconds is 'slow'?  Is that my WinMo ringing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258804980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone &mdash; a press of a button and you are "on."'</p></div><p>
Maybe Phoenix shouldn't be bashing on Google in that comparison.  I *wish* my Windows smart phone booted in 7 seconds.  It's more like 30-45.  It turns on, displays a retarded 8-second AT&amp;T animated logo, continues booting slowly, pops up and asks for a password (but you have to wait 10-15 seconds before you can actually type because Windows is still loading), and then finally you're at your phone desktop.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...except none of the buttons work for another 10 seconds while even more crap loads.<br>
<br>
Phoenix has bigger fish to bash over the head with a cluebat before they complain about Google and 7 seconds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone    a press of a button and you are " on .
" ' Maybe Phoenix should n't be bashing on Google in that comparison .
I * wish * my Windows smart phone booted in 7 seconds .
It 's more like 30-45 .
It turns on , displays a retarded 8-second AT&amp;T animated logo , continues booting slowly , pops up and asks for a password ( but you have to wait 10-15 seconds before you can actually type because Windows is still loading ) , and then finally you 're at your phone desktop .
...except none of the buttons work for another 10 seconds while even more crap loads .
Phoenix has bigger fish to bash over the head with a cluebat before they complain about Google and 7 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone — a press of a button and you are "on.
"'
Maybe Phoenix shouldn't be bashing on Google in that comparison.
I *wish* my Windows smart phone booted in 7 seconds.
It's more like 30-45.
It turns on, displays a retarded 8-second AT&amp;T animated logo, continues booting slowly, pops up and asks for a password (but you have to wait 10-15 seconds before you can actually type because Windows is still loading), and then finally you're at your phone desktop.
...except none of the buttons work for another 10 seconds while even more crap loads.
Phoenix has bigger fish to bash over the head with a cluebat before they complain about Google and 7 seconds.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188184</id>
	<title>In all the time people have used Windows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258800480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...it has NEVER been the most technically superior OS.</p><p>Is is the OS that runs all our apps.</p><p>Chrome and BIOS OSes do not change this.</p><p>Fast boot times don't matter if I have to dump my apps. Fast app launch times don't matter if I have to dump my apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it has NEVER been the most technically superior OS.Is is the OS that runs all our apps.Chrome and BIOS OSes do not change this.Fast boot times do n't matter if I have to dump my apps .
Fast app launch times do n't matter if I have to dump my apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it has NEVER been the most technically superior OS.Is is the OS that runs all our apps.Chrome and BIOS OSes do not change this.Fast boot times don't matter if I have to dump my apps.
Fast app launch times don't matter if I have to dump my apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30219972</id>
	<title>Re:"instant on"</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1259063160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Competition fixes that. What mail server do you run again? The one I build is refined just to handle taking market share from the one you run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition fixes that .
What mail server do you run again ?
The one I build is refined just to handle taking market share from the one you run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition fixes that.
What mail server do you run again?
The one I build is refined just to handle taking market share from the one you run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189220</id>
	<title>netscape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258807740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome OS seems like exactly the thing that MS was fearing from Netscape during the first browser war: that Netscape's browser would somehow end up competing directly against Windows and therefor had to be crushed early.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome OS seems like exactly the thing that MS was fearing from Netscape during the first browser war : that Netscape 's browser would somehow end up competing directly against Windows and therefor had to be crushed early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome OS seems like exactly the thing that MS was fearing from Netscape during the first browser war: that Netscape's browser would somehow end up competing directly against Windows and therefor had to be crushed early.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188512</id>
	<title>Many non-rivals also aren't impressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258802760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Richard Stallman says using cloud apps is stupid.</p><p>On comp.os.linux.advocacy, about the only thing the anti-Linux trolls and the pro-Linux trolls agree on is that they aren't trusting their data to the cloud, so Chrome OS is not impressive to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Stallman says using cloud apps is stupid.On comp.os.linux.advocacy , about the only thing the anti-Linux trolls and the pro-Linux trolls agree on is that they are n't trusting their data to the cloud , so Chrome OS is not impressive to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Stallman says using cloud apps is stupid.On comp.os.linux.advocacy, about the only thing the anti-Linux trolls and the pro-Linux trolls agree on is that they aren't trusting their data to the cloud, so Chrome OS is not impressive to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189688</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1258811760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In other words, it's exactly what mom and pop need.</i> </p><p>The geek has been saying this since Slashdot was a pup but every time the web appliance makes it entry in the market it tanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , it 's exactly what mom and pop need .
The geek has been saying this since Slashdot was a pup but every time the web appliance makes it entry in the market it tanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, it's exactly what mom and pop need.
The geek has been saying this since Slashdot was a pup but every time the web appliance makes it entry in the market it tanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30197460</id>
	<title>Google OS  the answer</title>
	<author>MasterCephus</author>
	<datestamp>1258893480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone keeps saying that this isn't a competition between M$ and Google because they server different customers...

Personally, I don't like the Google OS because:

* The people who everyone claims could use the Google OS (grandparents, techno-idiots) want to do a lot more than we give them credit for.  Most of those people will want to plug-in cameras, iPods, etc.  The other people (i.e. grandparents) can't see a netbook screen or keyboard, much less try to use it.  Most older people want big keyboards and big screens. Try showing your Grandfather who has trifocals how to maneuver a 12" screen....

* This idea of no hard drive.  Linux people tout "open source, so what's the problem?" -- do you want the Google OS to go down that path?  Linux is an abysmal failure on the desktop because of the technical difficulty AND because the distros that aren't difficult, they get pushed aside because the others are (read: Linux is just scary!).  I don't trust anyone with my data...not Google, not MS, anyone.  I want to store my kids pictures, my MP3's on my hard drive...not Google.  What do I do when my ISP decides to go down for a couple of hours, which leads me to:

* The world isn't fully connected to the internet yet...a lot of people (even people in urban areas) have no access to internet because of costs and area coverage...you are screwed if you want to use this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone keeps saying that this is n't a competition between M $ and Google because they server different customers.. . Personally , I do n't like the Google OS because : * The people who everyone claims could use the Google OS ( grandparents , techno-idiots ) want to do a lot more than we give them credit for .
Most of those people will want to plug-in cameras , iPods , etc .
The other people ( i.e .
grandparents ) ca n't see a netbook screen or keyboard , much less try to use it .
Most older people want big keyboards and big screens .
Try showing your Grandfather who has trifocals how to maneuver a 12 " screen... . * This idea of no hard drive .
Linux people tout " open source , so what 's the problem ?
" -- do you want the Google OS to go down that path ?
Linux is an abysmal failure on the desktop because of the technical difficulty AND because the distros that are n't difficult , they get pushed aside because the others are ( read : Linux is just scary ! ) .
I do n't trust anyone with my data...not Google , not MS , anyone .
I want to store my kids pictures , my MP3 's on my hard drive...not Google .
What do I do when my ISP decides to go down for a couple of hours , which leads me to : * The world is n't fully connected to the internet yet...a lot of people ( even people in urban areas ) have no access to internet because of costs and area coverage...you are screwed if you want to use this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone keeps saying that this isn't a competition between M$ and Google because they server different customers...

Personally, I don't like the Google OS because:

* The people who everyone claims could use the Google OS (grandparents, techno-idiots) want to do a lot more than we give them credit for.
Most of those people will want to plug-in cameras, iPods, etc.
The other people (i.e.
grandparents) can't see a netbook screen or keyboard, much less try to use it.
Most older people want big keyboards and big screens.
Try showing your Grandfather who has trifocals how to maneuver a 12" screen....

* This idea of no hard drive.
Linux people tout "open source, so what's the problem?
" -- do you want the Google OS to go down that path?
Linux is an abysmal failure on the desktop because of the technical difficulty AND because the distros that aren't difficult, they get pushed aside because the others are (read: Linux is just scary!).
I don't trust anyone with my data...not Google, not MS, anyone.
I want to store my kids pictures, my MP3's on my hard drive...not Google.
What do I do when my ISP decides to go down for a couple of hours, which leads me to:

* The world isn't fully connected to the internet yet...a lot of people (even people in urban areas) have no access to internet because of costs and area coverage...you are screwed if you want to use this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188338</id>
	<title>Re:The numbers might not add up</title>
	<author>blackraven14250</author>
	<datestamp>1258801380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you half the sales of all their OSes, you end up with the same ratios.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you half the sales of all their OSes , you end up with the same ratios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you half the sales of all their OSes, you end up with the same ratios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193712</id>
	<title>Microsoft Windows v. Google ChromeOS</title>
	<author>JohnnySoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1258908060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is in danger of seeing its products become less of a benchmark to aim for - more like a mile market to pass.</p><p>Microsoft did an impressive job of seizing Unix market share from Novell file servers and Unix servers &amp; desktops in the 1990's.</p><p>They had a few strategies:<br>1. Offer cheap file serving without user limits<br>
   in desktop OS to get rid of Novell which had<br>
   high price tag and user limits.<br>2. Price significantly lower than Unix systems.<br>3. Hang a "legacy" label on Unix systems.<br>4. Push Office applications as reason to get OS.</p><p>This is one take on the Windows vs. ChromeOS rivalry:  http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135288/Google\_s\_Chrome\_OS\_poses\_long\_term\_threat\_to\_Microsoft</p><p>I agree that the battle is hypothetical now.</p><p>However, having watched a number of technology niche takeovers, I noticed something.  The challenging products that are game changers usually overtake an overconfident incumbent by offering blatant advantages such as these:<br>* price<br>* maintenance/operation costs (TCO)<br>* graphics quality &amp; system performance<br>* expandability<br>* ease of use and user empowerment</p><p>Linux and perhaps ChromeOS blow away Windows on the first 2 points</p><p>Graphics quality &amp; performance will depend on the systems Google management selects/allows to run ChromeOS on. At a whim, almost - they could make it very high performance.  Of course, apps and/or utilities have to take advantage of it to get it used but they might already have started the process of fostering those.</p><p>Expandability of a ChromeOS cloud client computer is going to offer virtual resources so local ones will be less important.  It is conceivable that a Mac or Linux/Windows PC with a scanner in your home or office could be configured as a resource providing a scanner service - accessed via a URL or a web service API via negotiation with the cloud or tunneling through it</p><p>Nothing revolutionary there and it keeps the ChromeOS cloud client simple, flexible, and cheap.  At the same time it allows the user to capitalize on their existing OS.  Security is the tricky thing.  Jini finally created a decent scheme for that for Java applications but it took time.  UPnP has been been problematic and it let cybercrooks take over systems.  Google has advantage of being able to look at past things that worked and failed and avoid going down wrong paths.</p><p>Empowerment for office app suite users already exists.  Google has their web based word processor, spreadsheet, etc.  Running on Linux lets them harness Open Office if they wish, as well, though they might not want it running inside ChromeOS for security &amp; archicture reasons.  Does not matter</p><p>Virtualization can be seamlessly integrated onto a desktop allowing apps running under two OS to coexist, even to the point where their windows overlapp each other.</p><p>Ease of use is largely a degree of how smooth Google does the GUI design.  HCI is far ahead of were it was a couple decades ago, yielding a lot of sound principles, software mechanisms, and hardware devices.  Microsoft, by no means, has ever had a corner on the market of ease of use.</p><p>Malware has really messed up ease of use for users.  It is not really safe to use a Windows system carelessly, and caring to keep a Windows system safe takes a lot of work. Individual users who relied completely on iT department to protect them have lost a personal fortune after being blamed for the actions of malware.  Take the man who worked for Massachusetts, for example, as well as school teachers in the US &amp; UK.  Their use of the computer for business, ultimately, was not easy on them.</p><p>Simply using the computer to do online banking has proven incredibly costly for some companies and churches this year. They lost tens to hundreds of thousand of dollars. Their OS got compromised and malware embezzled a fortune.</p><p>Surprisingly, increasing security does not seem to be a game changer.  At least in the past it has not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is in danger of seeing its products become less of a benchmark to aim for - more like a mile market to pass.Microsoft did an impressive job of seizing Unix market share from Novell file servers and Unix servers &amp; desktops in the 1990 's.They had a few strategies : 1 .
Offer cheap file serving without user limits in desktop OS to get rid of Novell which had high price tag and user limits.2 .
Price significantly lower than Unix systems.3 .
Hang a " legacy " label on Unix systems.4 .
Push Office applications as reason to get OS.This is one take on the Windows vs. ChromeOS rivalry : http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135288/Google \ _s \ _Chrome \ _OS \ _poses \ _long \ _term \ _threat \ _to \ _MicrosoftI agree that the battle is hypothetical now.However , having watched a number of technology niche takeovers , I noticed something .
The challenging products that are game changers usually overtake an overconfident incumbent by offering blatant advantages such as these : * price * maintenance/operation costs ( TCO ) * graphics quality &amp; system performance * expandability * ease of use and user empowermentLinux and perhaps ChromeOS blow away Windows on the first 2 pointsGraphics quality &amp; performance will depend on the systems Google management selects/allows to run ChromeOS on .
At a whim , almost - they could make it very high performance .
Of course , apps and/or utilities have to take advantage of it to get it used but they might already have started the process of fostering those.Expandability of a ChromeOS cloud client computer is going to offer virtual resources so local ones will be less important .
It is conceivable that a Mac or Linux/Windows PC with a scanner in your home or office could be configured as a resource providing a scanner service - accessed via a URL or a web service API via negotiation with the cloud or tunneling through itNothing revolutionary there and it keeps the ChromeOS cloud client simple , flexible , and cheap .
At the same time it allows the user to capitalize on their existing OS .
Security is the tricky thing .
Jini finally created a decent scheme for that for Java applications but it took time .
UPnP has been been problematic and it let cybercrooks take over systems .
Google has advantage of being able to look at past things that worked and failed and avoid going down wrong paths.Empowerment for office app suite users already exists .
Google has their web based word processor , spreadsheet , etc .
Running on Linux lets them harness Open Office if they wish , as well , though they might not want it running inside ChromeOS for security &amp; archicture reasons .
Does not matterVirtualization can be seamlessly integrated onto a desktop allowing apps running under two OS to coexist , even to the point where their windows overlapp each other.Ease of use is largely a degree of how smooth Google does the GUI design .
HCI is far ahead of were it was a couple decades ago , yielding a lot of sound principles , software mechanisms , and hardware devices .
Microsoft , by no means , has ever had a corner on the market of ease of use.Malware has really messed up ease of use for users .
It is not really safe to use a Windows system carelessly , and caring to keep a Windows system safe takes a lot of work .
Individual users who relied completely on iT department to protect them have lost a personal fortune after being blamed for the actions of malware .
Take the man who worked for Massachusetts , for example , as well as school teachers in the US &amp; UK .
Their use of the computer for business , ultimately , was not easy on them.Simply using the computer to do online banking has proven incredibly costly for some companies and churches this year .
They lost tens to hundreds of thousand of dollars .
Their OS got compromised and malware embezzled a fortune.Surprisingly , increasing security does not seem to be a game changer .
At least in the past it has not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is in danger of seeing its products become less of a benchmark to aim for - more like a mile market to pass.Microsoft did an impressive job of seizing Unix market share from Novell file servers and Unix servers &amp; desktops in the 1990's.They had a few strategies:1.
Offer cheap file serving without user limits
   in desktop OS to get rid of Novell which had
   high price tag and user limits.2.
Price significantly lower than Unix systems.3.
Hang a "legacy" label on Unix systems.4.
Push Office applications as reason to get OS.This is one take on the Windows vs. ChromeOS rivalry:  http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135288/Google\_s\_Chrome\_OS\_poses\_long\_term\_threat\_to\_MicrosoftI agree that the battle is hypothetical now.However, having watched a number of technology niche takeovers, I noticed something.
The challenging products that are game changers usually overtake an overconfident incumbent by offering blatant advantages such as these:* price* maintenance/operation costs (TCO)* graphics quality &amp; system performance* expandability* ease of use and user empowermentLinux and perhaps ChromeOS blow away Windows on the first 2 pointsGraphics quality &amp; performance will depend on the systems Google management selects/allows to run ChromeOS on.
At a whim, almost - they could make it very high performance.
Of course, apps and/or utilities have to take advantage of it to get it used but they might already have started the process of fostering those.Expandability of a ChromeOS cloud client computer is going to offer virtual resources so local ones will be less important.
It is conceivable that a Mac or Linux/Windows PC with a scanner in your home or office could be configured as a resource providing a scanner service - accessed via a URL or a web service API via negotiation with the cloud or tunneling through itNothing revolutionary there and it keeps the ChromeOS cloud client simple, flexible, and cheap.
At the same time it allows the user to capitalize on their existing OS.
Security is the tricky thing.
Jini finally created a decent scheme for that for Java applications but it took time.
UPnP has been been problematic and it let cybercrooks take over systems.
Google has advantage of being able to look at past things that worked and failed and avoid going down wrong paths.Empowerment for office app suite users already exists.
Google has their web based word processor, spreadsheet, etc.
Running on Linux lets them harness Open Office if they wish, as well, though they might not want it running inside ChromeOS for security &amp; archicture reasons.
Does not matterVirtualization can be seamlessly integrated onto a desktop allowing apps running under two OS to coexist, even to the point where their windows overlapp each other.Ease of use is largely a degree of how smooth Google does the GUI design.
HCI is far ahead of were it was a couple decades ago, yielding a lot of sound principles, software mechanisms, and hardware devices.
Microsoft, by no means, has ever had a corner on the market of ease of use.Malware has really messed up ease of use for users.
It is not really safe to use a Windows system carelessly, and caring to keep a Windows system safe takes a lot of work.
Individual users who relied completely on iT department to protect them have lost a personal fortune after being blamed for the actions of malware.
Take the man who worked for Massachusetts, for example, as well as school teachers in the US &amp; UK.
Their use of the computer for business, ultimately, was not easy on them.Simply using the computer to do online banking has proven incredibly costly for some companies and churches this year.
They lost tens to hundreds of thousand of dollars.
Their OS got compromised and malware embezzled a fortune.Surprisingly, increasing security does not seem to be a game changer.
At least in the past it has not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188474</id>
	<title>Even if they were impressed, stunned even...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it's part of their paycheck to not be impressed with anything let alone admit it to the media.
<br> <br>
Do they use a press release response form ticking the checkboxes for all the usual lines?
<br> <br>
Oh come on, Chrome is no threat to desktops, because people will still need their rich apps on high-spec hardware, therefore desktops will be still around as a do-everything machine. Partly though, because laptops netbooks and smartphones haven't killed desktops yet. I fear though, Microsoft has for a long time been making Windows a one size fits all requirements OS, the indentical OS gets put on netbooks to top end workstations. Chrome OS will appeal people who just want web and social networking and a bit of mucking around with their digital photos, but previously had to fork out for more than they needed in a laptop and desktop.
<br> <br>
Having played around with the virtual machine images circulating, I don't think it's a threat to anything, but it looks pretty solid for a beta OS, but finally the ideal OS for the focused web tablet we've all been wanting for a long time. I also imagine the code could be rolled into existing linux distributions. It could coexist alongside other desktop environments ie KDE/Gnome, although I don't think Chrubuntu would be a very catch name.
<br> <br>
Oh and it's Linux, open source, if it is lacking any features <b>we will fix it<b> okay?</b></b></htmltext>
<tokenext>... it 's part of their paycheck to not be impressed with anything let alone admit it to the media .
Do they use a press release response form ticking the checkboxes for all the usual lines ?
Oh come on , Chrome is no threat to desktops , because people will still need their rich apps on high-spec hardware , therefore desktops will be still around as a do-everything machine .
Partly though , because laptops netbooks and smartphones have n't killed desktops yet .
I fear though , Microsoft has for a long time been making Windows a one size fits all requirements OS , the indentical OS gets put on netbooks to top end workstations .
Chrome OS will appeal people who just want web and social networking and a bit of mucking around with their digital photos , but previously had to fork out for more than they needed in a laptop and desktop .
Having played around with the virtual machine images circulating , I do n't think it 's a threat to anything , but it looks pretty solid for a beta OS , but finally the ideal OS for the focused web tablet we 've all been wanting for a long time .
I also imagine the code could be rolled into existing linux distributions .
It could coexist alongside other desktop environments ie KDE/Gnome , although I do n't think Chrubuntu would be a very catch name .
Oh and it 's Linux , open source , if it is lacking any features we will fix it okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it's part of their paycheck to not be impressed with anything let alone admit it to the media.
Do they use a press release response form ticking the checkboxes for all the usual lines?
Oh come on, Chrome is no threat to desktops, because people will still need their rich apps on high-spec hardware, therefore desktops will be still around as a do-everything machine.
Partly though, because laptops netbooks and smartphones haven't killed desktops yet.
I fear though, Microsoft has for a long time been making Windows a one size fits all requirements OS, the indentical OS gets put on netbooks to top end workstations.
Chrome OS will appeal people who just want web and social networking and a bit of mucking around with their digital photos, but previously had to fork out for more than they needed in a laptop and desktop.
Having played around with the virtual machine images circulating, I don't think it's a threat to anything, but it looks pretty solid for a beta OS, but finally the ideal OS for the focused web tablet we've all been wanting for a long time.
I also imagine the code could be rolled into existing linux distributions.
It could coexist alongside other desktop environments ie KDE/Gnome, although I don't think Chrubuntu would be a very catch name.
Oh and it's Linux, open source, if it is lacking any features we will fix it okay?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188314</id>
	<title>High praise!</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1258801260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're all so scared enough to give it this much attention, it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/must/ be good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're all so scared enough to give it this much attention , it /must/ be good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're all so scared enough to give it this much attention, it /must/ be good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188764</id>
	<title>What if?</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1258804380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if someone successfully develops something like a cloud service with Wine+NX and lets you run any and all Windows apps out in the cloud? If they get an acceptable framerate out of it that should put most "but my application X dont work" to shame. The only problem i can see is doing that through the browser and get fast enough framerates for games.</p><p>Im also wondering how much work it would be for Google to later on slap dalvik/android devkit onto the platform for local applications. Probably not that much i suspect.</p><p>While Google Chrome OS starts out on the small netbooks etc i dont think they will stay there if they succeed in getting a piece of the market.</p><p>The development that has lead up to this has been going on since long before Microsoft even discovered the internet. The whole browser war was about keeping applications tied to the local computers. Bill Gates and many other in MS said so themselves in discoveries during Gomes and MS vs. DOJ. The same goes for the Java poisoning. And now, trying to slip<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net and silverlight out as X platform and then sneaking in platform dependant stuff.</p><p>The natural development is going right in Googles direction with Microsoft working against it for everything they can. Its like a pent up dam, once a trickle starts its not long until the dam breaks and our computing as we know it is radically changed in a fairly short timespan.</p><p>I think we have pretty interesting times ahead with much foulplay from a desperate Microsoft. They will stop at nothing to stomp Google to bits, absolutely nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if someone successfully develops something like a cloud service with Wine + NX and lets you run any and all Windows apps out in the cloud ?
If they get an acceptable framerate out of it that should put most " but my application X dont work " to shame .
The only problem i can see is doing that through the browser and get fast enough framerates for games.Im also wondering how much work it would be for Google to later on slap dalvik/android devkit onto the platform for local applications .
Probably not that much i suspect.While Google Chrome OS starts out on the small netbooks etc i dont think they will stay there if they succeed in getting a piece of the market.The development that has lead up to this has been going on since long before Microsoft even discovered the internet .
The whole browser war was about keeping applications tied to the local computers .
Bill Gates and many other in MS said so themselves in discoveries during Gomes and MS vs. DOJ. The same goes for the Java poisoning .
And now , trying to slip .net and silverlight out as X platform and then sneaking in platform dependant stuff.The natural development is going right in Googles direction with Microsoft working against it for everything they can .
Its like a pent up dam , once a trickle starts its not long until the dam breaks and our computing as we know it is radically changed in a fairly short timespan.I think we have pretty interesting times ahead with much foulplay from a desperate Microsoft .
They will stop at nothing to stomp Google to bits , absolutely nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if someone successfully develops something like a cloud service with Wine+NX and lets you run any and all Windows apps out in the cloud?
If they get an acceptable framerate out of it that should put most "but my application X dont work" to shame.
The only problem i can see is doing that through the browser and get fast enough framerates for games.Im also wondering how much work it would be for Google to later on slap dalvik/android devkit onto the platform for local applications.
Probably not that much i suspect.While Google Chrome OS starts out on the small netbooks etc i dont think they will stay there if they succeed in getting a piece of the market.The development that has lead up to this has been going on since long before Microsoft even discovered the internet.
The whole browser war was about keeping applications tied to the local computers.
Bill Gates and many other in MS said so themselves in discoveries during Gomes and MS vs. DOJ. The same goes for the Java poisoning.
And now, trying to slip .net and silverlight out as X platform and then sneaking in platform dependant stuff.The natural development is going right in Googles direction with Microsoft working against it for everything they can.
Its like a pent up dam, once a trickle starts its not long until the dam breaks and our computing as we know it is radically changed in a fairly short timespan.I think we have pretty interesting times ahead with much foulplay from a desperate Microsoft.
They will stop at nothing to stomp Google to bits, absolutely nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189322</id>
	<title>Re:Purchasing an OS equates to browser superiority</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1258808820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They said nothing of the sort.  They said customers prefer a traditional OS vs a browser-only OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They said nothing of the sort .
They said customers prefer a traditional OS vs a browser-only OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said nothing of the sort.
They said customers prefer a traditional OS vs a browser-only OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188650</id>
	<title>Attack boot time?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258803660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO the key selling points for chrome are:</p><p>1) Zero user maintenance</p><p>2) Security (the thing is even resistant against user-space malware), even Linux distros are years away from sand-boxing desktop apps</p><p>3) Simple UI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO the key selling points for chrome are : 1 ) Zero user maintenance2 ) Security ( the thing is even resistant against user-space malware ) , even Linux distros are years away from sand-boxing desktop apps3 ) Simple UI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO the key selling points for chrome are:1) Zero user maintenance2) Security (the thing is even resistant against user-space malware), even Linux distros are years away from sand-boxing desktop apps3) Simple UI</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188778</id>
	<title>"messages [...] taking four seconds to open"</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1258804440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually why I've got ThunderBird's RSS thing set to only ever show me the summaries, and I click on from there, instead of loading the full article.  It's far easier for me to click through each item I'm interested in, opening them in FireFox, -then- going on to read them (each article is then already loaded), then it is for me to click one item, wait for it to display in ThunderBird, read it, click the next, wait again, etc.</p><p>The only real difference is that 'wait'.. and yes, it's only 2-4 seconds - but it's a very, very annoying wait.  If I could make ThunderBird pre-download the full articles, I would.<br>( if there's an add-on that does this, feel free to drop a link.. I'll search the add-ons site later myself )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually why I 've got ThunderBird 's RSS thing set to only ever show me the summaries , and I click on from there , instead of loading the full article .
It 's far easier for me to click through each item I 'm interested in , opening them in FireFox , -then- going on to read them ( each article is then already loaded ) , then it is for me to click one item , wait for it to display in ThunderBird , read it , click the next , wait again , etc.The only real difference is that 'wait'.. and yes , it 's only 2-4 seconds - but it 's a very , very annoying wait .
If I could make ThunderBird pre-download the full articles , I would .
( if there 's an add-on that does this , feel free to drop a link.. I 'll search the add-ons site later myself )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually why I've got ThunderBird's RSS thing set to only ever show me the summaries, and I click on from there, instead of loading the full article.
It's far easier for me to click through each item I'm interested in, opening them in FireFox, -then- going on to read them (each article is then already loaded), then it is for me to click one item, wait for it to display in ThunderBird, read it, click the next, wait again, etc.The only real difference is that 'wait'.. and yes, it's only 2-4 seconds - but it's a very, very annoying wait.
If I could make ThunderBird pre-download the full articles, I would.
( if there's an add-on that does this, feel free to drop a link.. I'll search the add-ons site later myself )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192028</id>
	<title>Re:Dang!</title>
	<author>Dustie</author>
	<datestamp>1258885320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Atoms are doing just fine. But you have to remember that we are talking computers here. No matter what you say about them someone will come by with anecdotal evidence that prove otherwise. Like *their* 128 kbps MP3's sound way better than FLAC and so on. It is a lost cause defending stuff like this here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Atoms are doing just fine .
But you have to remember that we are talking computers here .
No matter what you say about them someone will come by with anecdotal evidence that prove otherwise .
Like * their * 128 kbps MP3 's sound way better than FLAC and so on .
It is a lost cause defending stuff like this here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Atoms are doing just fine.
But you have to remember that we are talking computers here.
No matter what you say about them someone will come by with anecdotal evidence that prove otherwise.
Like *their* 128 kbps MP3's sound way better than FLAC and so on.
It is a lost cause defending stuff like this here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188380</id>
	<title>Learning from Politicians</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1258801680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said. 'From our perspective, however, our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works -- across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs -- purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.'</i></p><p>Sounds like the typical politician in a debate. Half a meaningless thought on the actual topic followed by a string of promotional sound bites for the product they're selling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'From what was shared , it appears to be in the early stages of development, ' a Microsoft spokeswoman said .
'From our perspective , however , our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works -- across the Web and on the desktop , and on all sizes and types of PCs -- purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we 've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time .
'Sounds like the typical politician in a debate .
Half a meaningless thought on the actual topic followed by a string of promotional sound bites for the product they 're selling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said.
'From our perspective, however, our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works -- across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs -- purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.
'Sounds like the typical politician in a debate.
Half a meaningless thought on the actual topic followed by a string of promotional sound bites for the product they're selling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190802</id>
	<title>Re:smartphone &mdash; a press of a button and you</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1258822800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft could just figure out how to prevent restarts on software installs, the cold boot scenario would be almost pointless. in the 3 months between software installs, I have not rebooted my PC a single time, and it always comes out of standby quickly.</p><p>Reducing cold boot time from 30 to 7 seconds just isn't a feature most users will see value in *if* Microsoft could just kill most of the scenarios where one would need to cold boot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft could just figure out how to prevent restarts on software installs , the cold boot scenario would be almost pointless .
in the 3 months between software installs , I have not rebooted my PC a single time , and it always comes out of standby quickly.Reducing cold boot time from 30 to 7 seconds just is n't a feature most users will see value in * if * Microsoft could just kill most of the scenarios where one would need to cold boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft could just figure out how to prevent restarts on software installs, the cold boot scenario would be almost pointless.
in the 3 months between software installs, I have not rebooted my PC a single time, and it always comes out of standby quickly.Reducing cold boot time from 30 to 7 seconds just isn't a feature most users will see value in *if* Microsoft could just kill most of the scenarios where one would need to cold boot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188930</id>
	<title>Microsoft fail; Google holding back details?</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1258805340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft aren't considering:</p><p>1) ARM version of Chrome OS - means $199 smartbooks instead of $299-$499 netbooks running Windows XP or Windows 7.</p><p>2) OS is free.</p><p>3) Actually Google might be offering a share of advertising revenue to manufacturers, as with Android. This means that the OS has a negative cost. We could see $149 smartbooks. Who is interested in a Windows 7 netbook at 3x the cost then?</p><p>4) Good enough for a second/cloud computer. Especially if it supports the "home cloud" with support for DNLA (media streaming) and other common home/office services.</p><p>However there are failings - firstly I think that Google need to make the OS Android compatible. I.e., installing the Dalvik VM and Android APIs by default. Android 2 allows higher resolutions. Android 3 will surely support resolutions up to smartbook (1024x600, 1366x768) and running an app as a tab within Chrome OS, allowing a unified platform. Surely therefore Chrome OS smartbooks will include multitouch displays...</p><p>Also Chrome OS 1 will surely be rough, like Android 1 and the G1. Droid is showing what Android 2 can do, and it's far more mature. Android 3 will probably be the first all-rounded and sweetly remembered variant. Android 4 will be good too. Android 5 through 7 will be dire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft are n't considering : 1 ) ARM version of Chrome OS - means $ 199 smartbooks instead of $ 299- $ 499 netbooks running Windows XP or Windows 7.2 ) OS is free.3 ) Actually Google might be offering a share of advertising revenue to manufacturers , as with Android .
This means that the OS has a negative cost .
We could see $ 149 smartbooks .
Who is interested in a Windows 7 netbook at 3x the cost then ? 4 ) Good enough for a second/cloud computer .
Especially if it supports the " home cloud " with support for DNLA ( media streaming ) and other common home/office services.However there are failings - firstly I think that Google need to make the OS Android compatible .
I.e. , installing the Dalvik VM and Android APIs by default .
Android 2 allows higher resolutions .
Android 3 will surely support resolutions up to smartbook ( 1024x600 , 1366x768 ) and running an app as a tab within Chrome OS , allowing a unified platform .
Surely therefore Chrome OS smartbooks will include multitouch displays...Also Chrome OS 1 will surely be rough , like Android 1 and the G1 .
Droid is showing what Android 2 can do , and it 's far more mature .
Android 3 will probably be the first all-rounded and sweetly remembered variant .
Android 4 will be good too .
Android 5 through 7 will be dire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft aren't considering:1) ARM version of Chrome OS - means $199 smartbooks instead of $299-$499 netbooks running Windows XP or Windows 7.2) OS is free.3) Actually Google might be offering a share of advertising revenue to manufacturers, as with Android.
This means that the OS has a negative cost.
We could see $149 smartbooks.
Who is interested in a Windows 7 netbook at 3x the cost then?4) Good enough for a second/cloud computer.
Especially if it supports the "home cloud" with support for DNLA (media streaming) and other common home/office services.However there are failings - firstly I think that Google need to make the OS Android compatible.
I.e., installing the Dalvik VM and Android APIs by default.
Android 2 allows higher resolutions.
Android 3 will surely support resolutions up to smartbook (1024x600, 1366x768) and running an app as a tab within Chrome OS, allowing a unified platform.
Surely therefore Chrome OS smartbooks will include multitouch displays...Also Chrome OS 1 will surely be rough, like Android 1 and the G1.
Droid is showing what Android 2 can do, and it's far more mature.
Android 3 will probably be the first all-rounded and sweetly remembered variant.
Android 4 will be good too.
Android 5 through 7 will be dire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188508</id>
	<title>Re:"instant on"</title>
	<author>Tarmas</author>
	<datestamp>1258802700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know, my first thought when I read "seven seconds is too long" was...</p></div><p>... ord3r V1@gra n0w !!!!!!!!!!!1!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , my first thought when I read " seven seconds is too long " was...... ord3r V1 @ gra n0w ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, my first thought when I read "seven seconds is too long" was...... ord3r V1@gra n0w !!!!!!!!!!!1!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190716</id>
	<title>Re:Car Analogy for MS Spokesperson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258821540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you hit the nail on the head.  Google is solving a problem that doesn't exist....</p></div><p>Doesn't exist yet. You might see hordes of people in a few years all carrying something phone sized (and it might be a phone as well) all browsing the web on the go, using Google Chrome O/S. There are people now who have pretty much given up their desktops for phones. If a savvy manufacturer joins up with Google on this...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you hit the nail on the head .
Google is solving a problem that does n't exist....Does n't exist yet .
You might see hordes of people in a few years all carrying something phone sized ( and it might be a phone as well ) all browsing the web on the go , using Google Chrome O/S .
There are people now who have pretty much given up their desktops for phones .
If a savvy manufacturer joins up with Google on this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you hit the nail on the head.
Google is solving a problem that doesn't exist....Doesn't exist yet.
You might see hordes of people in a few years all carrying something phone sized (and it might be a phone as well) all browsing the web on the go, using Google Chrome O/S.
There are people now who have pretty much given up their desktops for phones.
If a savvy manufacturer joins up with Google on this...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30196070</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1258882500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, it's exactly what mom and pop need. Especially if someone can make it work without needing a security expert to keep it working.</p></div><p>Except that as more people that have grown up with full desktop machines and capabilities at their fingertips become "mom and pop", a concept like this becomes less and less relevant.</p><p>I don't want my computing service to come down a wire which can go out each time the idiot ComCast installer unplugs the wrong cable from my apartment building (which is often).</p><p>We have the technology to make devices which don't <i>need</i> to rely on being connected to the rest of the world, and no one can search our hard drives for "marketing" data. When I'm "Pop", I expect to have a 128-Core 16x CPU @ 7.6GHz with a 256-bit 5GHz bus, 1EB of RAM/SSD and two drives that read/burn everything from CDs to X-Ray DVD at 96x with wireless AHDMI to a 6480p wall in my living room. From my $499 Mac Mini.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , it 's exactly what mom and pop need .
Especially if someone can make it work without needing a security expert to keep it working.Except that as more people that have grown up with full desktop machines and capabilities at their fingertips become " mom and pop " , a concept like this becomes less and less relevant.I do n't want my computing service to come down a wire which can go out each time the idiot ComCast installer unplugs the wrong cable from my apartment building ( which is often ) .We have the technology to make devices which do n't need to rely on being connected to the rest of the world , and no one can search our hard drives for " marketing " data .
When I 'm " Pop " , I expect to have a 128-Core 16x CPU @ 7.6GHz with a 256-bit 5GHz bus , 1EB of RAM/SSD and two drives that read/burn everything from CDs to X-Ray DVD at 96x with wireless AHDMI to a 6480p wall in my living room .
From my $ 499 Mac Mini .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, it's exactly what mom and pop need.
Especially if someone can make it work without needing a security expert to keep it working.Except that as more people that have grown up with full desktop machines and capabilities at their fingertips become "mom and pop", a concept like this becomes less and less relevant.I don't want my computing service to come down a wire which can go out each time the idiot ComCast installer unplugs the wrong cable from my apartment building (which is often).We have the technology to make devices which don't need to rely on being connected to the rest of the world, and no one can search our hard drives for "marketing" data.
When I'm "Pop", I expect to have a 128-Core 16x CPU @ 7.6GHz with a 256-bit 5GHz bus, 1EB of RAM/SSD and two drives that read/burn everything from CDs to X-Ray DVD at 96x with wireless AHDMI to a 6480p wall in my living room.
From my $499 Mac Mini.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190914</id>
	<title>Re:Even if they were impressed, stunned even...</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1258824360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I have to agree. I do think ChromeOS might be a good recession OS as they'll probably price el-cheapo netbooks at $199 with it. But I think netbook buyers are aware that they get what they pay for.</p><p>Seriously, the reality is that when Bob picks one of these devices up, he's going to return it after he figures out he can't run QuickBooks on it. And Jane won't buy it after she finds out Skype won't be available until later or that she has to switch away from Thunderbird to get her email.</p><p>Microsoft does understand that users go apesh1t when they can't run the software they want to run, despite Microsoft's prodding people to move to other solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I have to agree .
I do think ChromeOS might be a good recession OS as they 'll probably price el-cheapo netbooks at $ 199 with it .
But I think netbook buyers are aware that they get what they pay for.Seriously , the reality is that when Bob picks one of these devices up , he 's going to return it after he figures out he ca n't run QuickBooks on it .
And Jane wo n't buy it after she finds out Skype wo n't be available until later or that she has to switch away from Thunderbird to get her email.Microsoft does understand that users go apesh1t when they ca n't run the software they want to run , despite Microsoft 's prodding people to move to other solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I have to agree.
I do think ChromeOS might be a good recession OS as they'll probably price el-cheapo netbooks at $199 with it.
But I think netbook buyers are aware that they get what they pay for.Seriously, the reality is that when Bob picks one of these devices up, he's going to return it after he figures out he can't run QuickBooks on it.
And Jane won't buy it after she finds out Skype won't be available until later or that she has to switch away from Thunderbird to get her email.Microsoft does understand that users go apesh1t when they can't run the software they want to run, despite Microsoft's prodding people to move to other solutions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191490</id>
	<title>ChromeOS is a grand experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258831920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is making money with Ads, which will never go away, as long as google search is superior. So, this affords Google massive profits to tinker with.</p><p>1) GoogleOS is an Alpha release, many look at it and think, oh it's just a browser. Well yes it is, but Google is making the browser able to Run games (WebGL and NaCl), ajax apps using HTML5 for word procssor/spreadsheet/mail (you name it) replacements.</p><p>2) Google will iterate and refine GoogleOS much like Android. Right now, it is fresh and something so beyond what people are normally used to, that it seems Novel.</p><p>3) Everything is moving to the Web as in WebApps. I don't care what anyone says, all Apps given 10 years will be running in a Browser. Not Todays browser, no, Im talking about Browsers that can do 3D (webGL) dirext access to the CPU and GPU (games), very rich and compelling apps using HTML5 and Canvas tag.</p><p>4) Javascript will be 20x faster in 5-10 years, Native Client will be made more portable friendly, which means most all Open Source Libraries will be ported to run with Native Client. Right now, Glibc is being ported ( although just the beginnings and not without many issues), but once GTK QT and the major open Source Libraries are ported to Native Client, they will be able to run in the Browser.</p><p>Solution to the 'Cloud data and privacy' problem.</p><p>1) Google already Encrypts the Local SSD drive. So, if people are not buying into it because of fear of data probing, then Google and the OS community will simply Synch the Encrypted data.</p><p>2) The ability to retrieve all your lost data, after a laptop theft or crash, and then ReSynch is a Huge convience. Anyone will agree to that.</p><p>3) anyone that says, 'Well someone can still decrypt any encryption. Well, if that were the case no one would be doing online banking due to all the TLS and SSL problems. No, it just gets fixed and we move on. If the Internet disappears tomorrow, I think the economy would suffer, so people are using personal data on potentially hackable mediums, already. Plus, if Google I seriously doubt Google will be trying to hack into peoples private synched, and encrypted data. If so, lawsuit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is making money with Ads , which will never go away , as long as google search is superior .
So , this affords Google massive profits to tinker with.1 ) GoogleOS is an Alpha release , many look at it and think , oh it 's just a browser .
Well yes it is , but Google is making the browser able to Run games ( WebGL and NaCl ) , ajax apps using HTML5 for word procssor/spreadsheet/mail ( you name it ) replacements.2 ) Google will iterate and refine GoogleOS much like Android .
Right now , it is fresh and something so beyond what people are normally used to , that it seems Novel.3 ) Everything is moving to the Web as in WebApps .
I do n't care what anyone says , all Apps given 10 years will be running in a Browser .
Not Todays browser , no , Im talking about Browsers that can do 3D ( webGL ) dirext access to the CPU and GPU ( games ) , very rich and compelling apps using HTML5 and Canvas tag.4 ) Javascript will be 20x faster in 5-10 years , Native Client will be made more portable friendly , which means most all Open Source Libraries will be ported to run with Native Client .
Right now , Glibc is being ported ( although just the beginnings and not without many issues ) , but once GTK QT and the major open Source Libraries are ported to Native Client , they will be able to run in the Browser.Solution to the 'Cloud data and privacy ' problem.1 ) Google already Encrypts the Local SSD drive .
So , if people are not buying into it because of fear of data probing , then Google and the OS community will simply Synch the Encrypted data.2 ) The ability to retrieve all your lost data , after a laptop theft or crash , and then ReSynch is a Huge convience .
Anyone will agree to that.3 ) anyone that says , 'Well someone can still decrypt any encryption .
Well , if that were the case no one would be doing online banking due to all the TLS and SSL problems .
No , it just gets fixed and we move on .
If the Internet disappears tomorrow , I think the economy would suffer , so people are using personal data on potentially hackable mediums , already .
Plus , if Google I seriously doubt Google will be trying to hack into peoples private synched , and encrypted data .
If so , lawsuit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is making money with Ads, which will never go away, as long as google search is superior.
So, this affords Google massive profits to tinker with.1) GoogleOS is an Alpha release, many look at it and think, oh it's just a browser.
Well yes it is, but Google is making the browser able to Run games (WebGL and NaCl), ajax apps using HTML5 for word procssor/spreadsheet/mail (you name it) replacements.2) Google will iterate and refine GoogleOS much like Android.
Right now, it is fresh and something so beyond what people are normally used to, that it seems Novel.3) Everything is moving to the Web as in WebApps.
I don't care what anyone says, all Apps given 10 years will be running in a Browser.
Not Todays browser, no, Im talking about Browsers that can do 3D (webGL) dirext access to the CPU and GPU (games), very rich and compelling apps using HTML5 and Canvas tag.4) Javascript will be 20x faster in 5-10 years, Native Client will be made more portable friendly, which means most all Open Source Libraries will be ported to run with Native Client.
Right now, Glibc is being ported ( although just the beginnings and not without many issues), but once GTK QT and the major open Source Libraries are ported to Native Client, they will be able to run in the Browser.Solution to the 'Cloud data and privacy' problem.1) Google already Encrypts the Local SSD drive.
So, if people are not buying into it because of fear of data probing, then Google and the OS community will simply Synch the Encrypted data.2) The ability to retrieve all your lost data, after a laptop theft or crash, and then ReSynch is a Huge convience.
Anyone will agree to that.3) anyone that says, 'Well someone can still decrypt any encryption.
Well, if that were the case no one would be doing online banking due to all the TLS and SSL problems.
No, it just gets fixed and we move on.
If the Internet disappears tomorrow, I think the economy would suffer, so people are using personal data on potentially hackable mediums, already.
Plus, if Google I seriously doubt Google will be trying to hack into peoples private synched, and encrypted data.
If so, lawsuit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188420</id>
	<title>Re:The numbers might not add up</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1258802040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember to halve any sales figures that Microsoft releases due to how they constantly misrepresent and mis-measure their actual sales.</p></div><p>I don't think they need to here. Vista was a relative flop, and XP was released in 2001... the PC market has increased enormously in size since then. The success of Windows 7 isn't really in doubt anyway - people have clung to XP, so there is pent up demand for anything even remotely as usable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember to halve any sales figures that Microsoft releases due to how they constantly misrepresent and mis-measure their actual sales.I do n't think they need to here .
Vista was a relative flop , and XP was released in 2001... the PC market has increased enormously in size since then .
The success of Windows 7 is n't really in doubt anyway - people have clung to XP , so there is pent up demand for anything even remotely as usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember to halve any sales figures that Microsoft releases due to how they constantly misrepresent and mis-measure their actual sales.I don't think they need to here.
Vista was a relative flop, and XP was released in 2001... the PC market has increased enormously in size since then.
The success of Windows 7 isn't really in doubt anyway - people have clung to XP, so there is pent up demand for anything even remotely as usable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188556</id>
	<title>Haiku is better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258803000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of having the OS depend on the Internet is not too brilliant IMHO, but then I think a great limitation was to base it on linux... they should've taken something like Haiku instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of having the OS depend on the Internet is not too brilliant IMHO , but then I think a great limitation was to base it on linux... they should 've taken something like Haiku instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of having the OS depend on the Internet is not too brilliant IMHO, but then I think a great limitation was to base it on linux... they should've taken something like Haiku instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189232</id>
	<title>Re:Just works?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1258807920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And it "just works" on ARM processors? So "PC" should really be "x86-based PC".</p></div></blockquote><p>No, but Windows CE 6 "just works" on ARM processors.  Of course, it can't run the same apps that Windows 7 can.</p><p>Then again, ChromeOS runs exactly 0 applications other than Chrome itself, so that comparison is moot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it " just works " on ARM processors ?
So " PC " should really be " x86-based PC " .No , but Windows CE 6 " just works " on ARM processors .
Of course , it ca n't run the same apps that Windows 7 can.Then again , ChromeOS runs exactly 0 applications other than Chrome itself , so that comparison is moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it "just works" on ARM processors?
So "PC" should really be "x86-based PC".No, but Windows CE 6 "just works" on ARM processors.
Of course, it can't run the same apps that Windows 7 can.Then again, ChromeOS runs exactly 0 applications other than Chrome itself, so that comparison is moot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188172</id>
	<title>News Flash!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258800420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not even google can please 100\% of the people 100\% of the time.</p><p>How is that different from any other company that has ever existed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even google can please 100 \ % of the people 100 \ % of the time.How is that different from any other company that has ever existed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even google can please 100\% of the people 100\% of the time.How is that different from any other company that has ever existed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189254</id>
	<title>Purchasing an OS equates to browser superiority?</title>
	<author>santiagodraco</author>
	<datestamp>1258808220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting position by MS.   So, the fact that they've sold a ton of Windows 7 licenses somehow implies that IE is better than Chrome?   Sure sounds to me like the kinds of things antitrust lawyers would be interested in hearing.</p><p>Personally Chrome hasn't done anything for me, but that's besides the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting position by MS. So , the fact that they 've sold a ton of Windows 7 licenses somehow implies that IE is better than Chrome ?
Sure sounds to me like the kinds of things antitrust lawyers would be interested in hearing.Personally Chrome has n't done anything for me , but that 's besides the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting position by MS.   So, the fact that they've sold a ton of Windows 7 licenses somehow implies that IE is better than Chrome?
Sure sounds to me like the kinds of things antitrust lawyers would be interested in hearing.Personally Chrome hasn't done anything for me, but that's besides the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188220</id>
	<title>The numbers might not add up</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1258800720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.</p></div></blockquote><p>Remember to halve any sales figures that Microsoft releases due to how they constantly misrepresent and mis-measure their actual sales.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we 've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.Remember to halve any sales figures that Microsoft releases due to how they constantly misrepresent and mis-measure their actual sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.Remember to halve any sales figures that Microsoft releases due to how they constantly misrepresent and mis-measure their actual sales.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189894</id>
	<title>Re:"instant on"</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258813380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If something takes longer than about 3 seconds, I usually flip to another window. The constant task switching *is* a hell of a lot less efficient than if the email opened more quickly.</p><p>More to the point, computer speed is subjective anyway-- If an OS runs apps 50\% faster, but each button press takes 50\% longer to refresh the screen, that OS is slower. Welcome to "Human Beings 101".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If something takes longer than about 3 seconds , I usually flip to another window .
The constant task switching * is * a hell of a lot less efficient than if the email opened more quickly.More to the point , computer speed is subjective anyway-- If an OS runs apps 50 \ % faster , but each button press takes 50 \ % longer to refresh the screen , that OS is slower .
Welcome to " Human Beings 101 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something takes longer than about 3 seconds, I usually flip to another window.
The constant task switching *is* a hell of a lot less efficient than if the email opened more quickly.More to the point, computer speed is subjective anyway-- If an OS runs apps 50\% faster, but each button press takes 50\% longer to refresh the screen, that OS is slower.
Welcome to "Human Beings 101".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188856</id>
	<title>Re:In all the time people have used Windows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258804920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Our apps' is totally subjective.</p><p>Ask the typical home user in 2009 what they do on their computer most of the time and the answer is probably facebook which has absolutely nothing to do with Windows. It's only going to shift more in that direction as time goes on, by this time next year streaming web video will have expanded substantially, facebook will have another 100+ million users, and the relevance of all those Apps that require windows will fade away.</p><p>Besides that, there is no forced choice here. This thing is supposed to be for your second, cheap and extremely portable computer, the primary one can run whatever you want it to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Our apps ' is totally subjective.Ask the typical home user in 2009 what they do on their computer most of the time and the answer is probably facebook which has absolutely nothing to do with Windows .
It 's only going to shift more in that direction as time goes on , by this time next year streaming web video will have expanded substantially , facebook will have another 100 + million users , and the relevance of all those Apps that require windows will fade away.Besides that , there is no forced choice here .
This thing is supposed to be for your second , cheap and extremely portable computer , the primary one can run whatever you want it to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Our apps' is totally subjective.Ask the typical home user in 2009 what they do on their computer most of the time and the answer is probably facebook which has absolutely nothing to do with Windows.
It's only going to shift more in that direction as time goes on, by this time next year streaming web video will have expanded substantially, facebook will have another 100+ million users, and the relevance of all those Apps that require windows will fade away.Besides that, there is no forced choice here.
This thing is supposed to be for your second, cheap and extremely portable computer, the primary one can run whatever you want it to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193426</id>
	<title>Penis Envy</title>
	<author>lordsid</author>
	<datestamp>1258906020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me or are all these companies being a little quick to pounce on Google for this one?</p><p>'Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second. Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs (CEO of Phoenix Technologies) said.  'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks. You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone -- a press of a button and you are "on."'</p><p>It takes my android phone a good minute to boot up and load the OS. I'm pretty sure palm and blackberry are just the same. The only reason our smartphones are "instant-on" is because they are already "on" and just standby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or are all these companies being a little quick to pounce on Google for this one ?
'Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second .
Seven seconds is too long, ' Hobbs ( CEO of Phoenix Technologies ) said .
'There is no such thing as " cold boot " for today 's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks .
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone -- a press of a button and you are " on .
" 'It takes my android phone a good minute to boot up and load the OS .
I 'm pretty sure palm and blackberry are just the same .
The only reason our smartphones are " instant-on " is because they are already " on " and just standby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or are all these companies being a little quick to pounce on Google for this one?
'Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second.
Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs (CEO of Phoenix Technologies) said.
'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks.
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone -- a press of a button and you are "on.
"'It takes my android phone a good minute to boot up and load the OS.
I'm pretty sure palm and blackberry are just the same.
The only reason our smartphones are "instant-on" is because they are already "on" and just standby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</id>
	<title>At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1258800900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are competing directly, but Google's friendlier. Google is making an appliance OS, where as SplashTop is designed as a light fast-booting OS.
</p><p>But almost everyone is using a strawman (as Microsoft is). The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing. It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc. Everyone is writing the "Google vs. Microsoft" article they <i>want</i> to write, instead of the tougher article about how Google is basically working to define a new class of computer (something of a netbook that's not running a general OS).
</p><p>It's web-TV, but not on TV and not horrible. It's an email appliance OS that lets you read the web pages people link to in their emails.
</p><p>It's not a direct shot at MS and Apple.
</p><p> <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/a\_car\_and\_a\_bicycle" title="daringfireball.net">Gruber</a> [daringfireball.net] gets another one right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are competing directly , but Google 's friendlier .
Google is making an appliance OS , where as SplashTop is designed as a light fast-booting OS .
But almost everyone is using a strawman ( as Microsoft is ) .
The point is not to replace Windows , it 's an OS for web surfing .
It 's not for playing World of Warcraft , doing heavy photo editing , video editing , etc .
Everyone is writing the " Google vs. Microsoft " article they want to write , instead of the tougher article about how Google is basically working to define a new class of computer ( something of a netbook that 's not running a general OS ) .
It 's web-TV , but not on TV and not horrible .
It 's an email appliance OS that lets you read the web pages people link to in their emails .
It 's not a direct shot at MS and Apple .
Gruber [ daringfireball.net ] gets another one right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are competing directly, but Google's friendlier.
Google is making an appliance OS, where as SplashTop is designed as a light fast-booting OS.
But almost everyone is using a strawman (as Microsoft is).
The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing.
It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc.
Everyone is writing the "Google vs. Microsoft" article they want to write, instead of the tougher article about how Google is basically working to define a new class of computer (something of a netbook that's not running a general OS).
It's web-TV, but not on TV and not horrible.
It's an email appliance OS that lets you read the web pages people link to in their emails.
It's not a direct shot at MS and Apple.
Gruber [daringfireball.net] gets another one right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188528</id>
	<title>Uh...</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1258802820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs said.</p><p>For instant on it is.  FOr a quick boot it's ok.</p><p>&gt; There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks. You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone -- a<br>&gt; press of a button and you are "on."' M</p><p>My smartphone (HTC Touch Diamond) is nothing like that.  From pressing the reset button (near where the stylus lives) to doing anything is around a minute.  7 seconds would be a massive improvement.</p><p>Does Google's OS include the BIOS in those 7 seconds?</p><p>My problem with the Google OS is I don't really want an OS with no hard drive and everything living on the net somewhere out of my control.  I want to copy my photos onto my hard drive(s), convert them (from RAW) etc etc.  I can't be doing all that over the net with 11 meg images, over a possibly slow, and definately hostile internet connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Seven seconds is too long, ' Hobbs said.For instant on it is .
FOr a quick boot it 's ok. &gt; There is no such thing as " cold boot " for today 's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks .
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone -- a &gt; press of a button and you are " on .
" ' MMy smartphone ( HTC Touch Diamond ) is nothing like that .
From pressing the reset button ( near where the stylus lives ) to doing anything is around a minute .
7 seconds would be a massive improvement.Does Google 's OS include the BIOS in those 7 seconds ? My problem with the Google OS is I do n't really want an OS with no hard drive and everything living on the net somewhere out of my control .
I want to copy my photos onto my hard drive ( s ) , convert them ( from RAW ) etc etc .
I ca n't be doing all that over the net with 11 meg images , over a possibly slow , and definately hostile internet connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs said.For instant on it is.
FOr a quick boot it's ok.&gt; There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks.
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone -- a&gt; press of a button and you are "on.
"' MMy smartphone (HTC Touch Diamond) is nothing like that.
From pressing the reset button (near where the stylus lives) to doing anything is around a minute.
7 seconds would be a massive improvement.Does Google's OS include the BIOS in those 7 seconds?My problem with the Google OS is I don't really want an OS with no hard drive and everything living on the net somewhere out of my control.
I want to copy my photos onto my hard drive(s), convert them (from RAW) etc etc.
I can't be doing all that over the net with 11 meg images, over a possibly slow, and definately hostile internet connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188496</id>
	<title>Re:Dang!</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1258802520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Chrome is obsoleted by Droid.  For the same price point, Droid gives you more features and more convenience - plus you don't have to take 7 seconds to boot.
</p><p>
They've been hyping ChromeOS as a "second computer" for business users - it's far better to increase user productivity by spending $100 or so on a second monitor.
</p><p>
Also, there's always that "one app" that you want that won't (or preferably shouldn't) run off the web.
</p><p>
ChromeOS is a product with no natural market.  Cheap users?  Like any company is going to want to pay for clicks from someone too cheap to buy a "real computer", even a $250 netbook.
</p><p>
Apps that work off the web?  Buy a Wii and use those smae apps from within the Opera Wii browser. Spend another $25 for Wii Speak and you've got video conferencing as well.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome is obsoleted by Droid .
For the same price point , Droid gives you more features and more convenience - plus you do n't have to take 7 seconds to boot .
They 've been hyping ChromeOS as a " second computer " for business users - it 's far better to increase user productivity by spending $ 100 or so on a second monitor .
Also , there 's always that " one app " that you want that wo n't ( or preferably should n't ) run off the web .
ChromeOS is a product with no natural market .
Cheap users ?
Like any company is going to want to pay for clicks from someone too cheap to buy a " real computer " , even a $ 250 netbook .
Apps that work off the web ?
Buy a Wii and use those smae apps from within the Opera Wii browser .
Spend another $ 25 for Wii Speak and you 've got video conferencing as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Chrome is obsoleted by Droid.
For the same price point, Droid gives you more features and more convenience - plus you don't have to take 7 seconds to boot.
They've been hyping ChromeOS as a "second computer" for business users - it's far better to increase user productivity by spending $100 or so on a second monitor.
Also, there's always that "one app" that you want that won't (or preferably shouldn't) run off the web.
ChromeOS is a product with no natural market.
Cheap users?
Like any company is going to want to pay for clicks from someone too cheap to buy a "real computer", even a $250 netbook.
Apps that work off the web?
Buy a Wii and use those smae apps from within the Opera Wii browser.
Spend another $25 for Wii Speak and you've got video conferencing as well.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188564</id>
	<title>microsoft are scared</title>
	<author>kregg</author>
	<datestamp>1258803120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to see the demise of people making Access databases, Word forms and Windows only applications.

My only concern would be media - I don't really want my games, mp3s, videos stored "in the cloud". Docs, emails are fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see the demise of people making Access databases , Word forms and Windows only applications .
My only concern would be media - I do n't really want my games , mp3s , videos stored " in the cloud " .
Docs , emails are fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see the demise of people making Access databases, Word forms and Windows only applications.
My only concern would be media - I don't really want my games, mp3s, videos stored "in the cloud".
Docs, emails are fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136</id>
	<title>Dang!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258800180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was already contrarian in yesterday's Chrome thread.  Some people are asking <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2356174,00.asp" title="pcmag.com" rel="nofollow">"Does Chrome OS Spell the End of Desktop PCs?"</a> [pcmag.com]  I think the thing that's in the most danger of being taken over by Chrome OS is slashdot.  Some people will make some interesting builds, and it will be a lot of fun to play with.  It's doubtful much more will come of it than that.
</p><p>But of course Microsoft and their friends at Forrester and Gartner, PC World and news.com.com.com will be declaring it a greater threat to world peace than Scientology, claim it causes genital warts, say that it may damage both your computer and your self esteem.  The funniest thing I've seen along this line is <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/google-chrome-os-2/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [wired.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was already contrarian in yesterday 's Chrome thread .
Some people are asking " Does Chrome OS Spell the End of Desktop PCs ?
" [ pcmag.com ] I think the thing that 's in the most danger of being taken over by Chrome OS is slashdot .
Some people will make some interesting builds , and it will be a lot of fun to play with .
It 's doubtful much more will come of it than that .
But of course Microsoft and their friends at Forrester and Gartner , PC World and news.com.com.com will be declaring it a greater threat to world peace than Scientology , claim it causes genital warts , say that it may damage both your computer and your self esteem .
The funniest thing I 've seen along this line is this one [ wired.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was already contrarian in yesterday's Chrome thread.
Some people are asking "Does Chrome OS Spell the End of Desktop PCs?
" [pcmag.com]  I think the thing that's in the most danger of being taken over by Chrome OS is slashdot.
Some people will make some interesting builds, and it will be a lot of fun to play with.
It's doubtful much more will come of it than that.
But of course Microsoft and their friends at Forrester and Gartner, PC World and news.com.com.com will be declaring it a greater threat to world peace than Scientology, claim it causes genital warts, say that it may damage both your computer and your self esteem.
The funniest thing I've seen along this line is this one [wired.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189680</id>
	<title>Microsoft says it's no good?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258811580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee.</p><p>Well, I guess that's that, then.</p><p>This is "Bing" all over again. Personally, I hate it, but Microsoft *says* its better, and Bill Gates is the world's richest man so who am I to argue? It hurts, but it *must* be good for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee.Well , I guess that 's that , then.This is " Bing " all over again .
Personally , I hate it , but Microsoft * says * its better , and Bill Gates is the world 's richest man so who am I to argue ?
It hurts , but it * must * be good for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee.Well, I guess that's that, then.This is "Bing" all over again.
Personally, I hate it, but Microsoft *says* its better, and Bill Gates is the world's richest man so who am I to argue?
It hurts, but it *must* be good for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188540</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1258802940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing. It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc.</p></div><p>It's not a popular idea here in Geekdom, but many people think Web applications *are* the future...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is not to replace Windows , it 's an OS for web surfing .
It 's not for playing World of Warcraft , doing heavy photo editing , video editing , etc.It 's not a popular idea here in Geekdom , but many people think Web applications * are * the future.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing.
It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc.It's not a popular idea here in Geekdom, but many people think Web applications *are* the future...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190654</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft fail; Google holding back details?</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1258820700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent as "funny" for its ironical "fanboism" of Chrome and thus leaving Maemo/n900 out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent as " funny " for its ironical " fanboism " of Chrome and thus leaving Maemo/n900 out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent as "funny" for its ironical "fanboism" of Chrome and thus leaving Maemo/n900 out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191966</id>
	<title>Web only will be beneficial for all or most :)</title>
	<author>rshimizu12</author>
	<datestamp>1258883820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google states that Chrome OS will run only web apps and is designed primarily for Netbooks. So this means that wireless access must be available for free or at little cost everywhere. Now consider that Google is coming with it's own phone soon.  So since Google owns a lot of dark fiber, perhaps they will trade network access with the cell phone companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google states that Chrome OS will run only web apps and is designed primarily for Netbooks .
So this means that wireless access must be available for free or at little cost everywhere .
Now consider that Google is coming with it 's own phone soon .
So since Google owns a lot of dark fiber , perhaps they will trade network access with the cell phone companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google states that Chrome OS will run only web apps and is designed primarily for Netbooks.
So this means that wireless access must be available for free or at little cost everywhere.
Now consider that Google is coming with it's own phone soon.
So since Google owns a lot of dark fiber, perhaps they will trade network access with the cell phone companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190576</id>
	<title>A bunch of Trolls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258819560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither Splashtop or Hyperspace can be installed on a non-Microsoft-licensed system.  After repeated attempts to get a straight answer WHY from either of them, I am forced to consider any of their comments to be TROLLING.<br>CountFroggy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither Splashtop or Hyperspace can be installed on a non-Microsoft-licensed system .
After repeated attempts to get a straight answer WHY from either of them , I am forced to consider any of their comments to be TROLLING.CountFroggy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither Splashtop or Hyperspace can be installed on a non-Microsoft-licensed system.
After repeated attempts to get a straight answer WHY from either of them, I am forced to consider any of their comments to be TROLLING.CountFroggy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188658</id>
	<title>Google has lots of time to get it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258803720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What people don't get about Google's software is that they are not selling it. That's not where their revenue comes from. They can spend a lot of time getting the software right, refocusing it, tweaking it, getting comments. Microsoft by contrast has to come out with the big "impressive" release every few years to keep the company afloat. That's their business model. It's not Google's.</p><p>Look at Android. 18 months ago the cell phone execs were all saying that Google didn't understand how hard it is to create cellular phone software. The G1 got a lot of yawns. That reception would have been a disaster for Apple, but for Google it didn't matter, they just kept working on it. Today, Android is a serious competitor.</p><p>Whatever Chrome does or doesn't do can be changed. And maybe it will flop. That won't be a huge deal for Google as long as they get their advertising on the next generation of devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What people do n't get about Google 's software is that they are not selling it .
That 's not where their revenue comes from .
They can spend a lot of time getting the software right , refocusing it , tweaking it , getting comments .
Microsoft by contrast has to come out with the big " impressive " release every few years to keep the company afloat .
That 's their business model .
It 's not Google 's.Look at Android .
18 months ago the cell phone execs were all saying that Google did n't understand how hard it is to create cellular phone software .
The G1 got a lot of yawns .
That reception would have been a disaster for Apple , but for Google it did n't matter , they just kept working on it .
Today , Android is a serious competitor.Whatever Chrome does or does n't do can be changed .
And maybe it will flop .
That wo n't be a huge deal for Google as long as they get their advertising on the next generation of devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people don't get about Google's software is that they are not selling it.
That's not where their revenue comes from.
They can spend a lot of time getting the software right, refocusing it, tweaking it, getting comments.
Microsoft by contrast has to come out with the big "impressive" release every few years to keep the company afloat.
That's their business model.
It's not Google's.Look at Android.
18 months ago the cell phone execs were all saying that Google didn't understand how hard it is to create cellular phone software.
The G1 got a lot of yawns.
That reception would have been a disaster for Apple, but for Google it didn't matter, they just kept working on it.
Today, Android is a serious competitor.Whatever Chrome does or doesn't do can be changed.
And maybe it will flop.
That won't be a huge deal for Google as long as they get their advertising on the next generation of devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191432</id>
	<title>"just works"?</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1258831140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>their approval of the way Windows 7 just works</i></p><p>So, Microsoft is now imitating Apple's moniker.  Of course, it's b.s. from both Microsoft and Apple: when you buy their systems, you get an OS and a bunch of accessory applications.  You then need to install the application software you actually want to use.  And then you can get ready for being pestered constantly by applications that want to update themselves, security warnings, and all that other crap that comes with desktop OSes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>their approval of the way Windows 7 just worksSo , Microsoft is now imitating Apple 's moniker .
Of course , it 's b.s .
from both Microsoft and Apple : when you buy their systems , you get an OS and a bunch of accessory applications .
You then need to install the application software you actually want to use .
And then you can get ready for being pestered constantly by applications that want to update themselves , security warnings , and all that other crap that comes with desktop OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their approval of the way Windows 7 just worksSo, Microsoft is now imitating Apple's moniker.
Of course, it's b.s.
from both Microsoft and Apple: when you buy their systems, you get an OS and a bunch of accessory applications.
You then need to install the application software you actually want to use.
And then you can get ready for being pestered constantly by applications that want to update themselves, security warnings, and all that other crap that comes with desktop OSes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</id>
	<title>"instant on"</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1258800960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, my first thought when I read "seven seconds is too long" was "you've got to be kidding" - but then I remembered how some of the people we support (academic faculty) have wasted hours of our time with complaints when their IMAP email messages were taking four seconds to open on one particular day instead of the usual one second... (and yes, that was a verbatim complaint).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , my first thought when I read " seven seconds is too long " was " you 've got to be kidding " - but then I remembered how some of the people we support ( academic faculty ) have wasted hours of our time with complaints when their IMAP email messages were taking four seconds to open on one particular day instead of the usual one second... ( and yes , that was a verbatim complaint ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, my first thought when I read "seven seconds is too long" was "you've got to be kidding" - but then I remembered how some of the people we support (academic faculty) have wasted hours of our time with complaints when their IMAP email messages were taking four seconds to open on one particular day instead of the usual one second... (and yes, that was a verbatim complaint).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190770</id>
	<title>Re:Many non-rivals also aren't impressed</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1258822440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've trusted data to the cloud since the advent of email.</p><p>I remember dialing up to a shell account to check my email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've trusted data to the cloud since the advent of email.I remember dialing up to a shell account to check my email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've trusted data to the cloud since the advent of email.I remember dialing up to a shell account to check my email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188900</id>
	<title>Re:Dang!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258805160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To get on the comment-your-ass-about-something-you-can't-possibly-change bandwagon - what *is* a shame in all this is that ChromeOS wasn't developed *earlier*. Atom based netbooks are already too slow for anything *but* web surfing. Ana a few bucks could be shaved by dropping the HDD. Other things could be minimized too - 1 GB RAM is actually OK if all the machine does is being a thin-ish web client, maybe 512 MB could also be enough. A SD slot would of course be useful. The video system doesn't have to be anything special as long as it support flash decently (i.e. not the old Intel graphics chip - nVidia ION would probably be minimum), etc. All this could bring down battery consumption, etc.</p><p>It's a nice concept.</p><p>Of course it goes *completely* against what both MS and Intel are doing today...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To get on the comment-your-ass-about-something-you-ca n't-possibly-change bandwagon - what * is * a shame in all this is that ChromeOS was n't developed * earlier * .
Atom based netbooks are already too slow for anything * but * web surfing .
Ana a few bucks could be shaved by dropping the HDD .
Other things could be minimized too - 1 GB RAM is actually OK if all the machine does is being a thin-ish web client , maybe 512 MB could also be enough .
A SD slot would of course be useful .
The video system does n't have to be anything special as long as it support flash decently ( i.e .
not the old Intel graphics chip - nVidia ION would probably be minimum ) , etc .
All this could bring down battery consumption , etc.It 's a nice concept.Of course it goes * completely * against what both MS and Intel are doing today.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get on the comment-your-ass-about-something-you-can't-possibly-change bandwagon - what *is* a shame in all this is that ChromeOS wasn't developed *earlier*.
Atom based netbooks are already too slow for anything *but* web surfing.
Ana a few bucks could be shaved by dropping the HDD.
Other things could be minimized too - 1 GB RAM is actually OK if all the machine does is being a thin-ish web client, maybe 512 MB could also be enough.
A SD slot would of course be useful.
The video system doesn't have to be anything special as long as it support flash decently (i.e.
not the old Intel graphics chip - nVidia ION would probably be minimum), etc.
All this could bring down battery consumption, etc.It's a nice concept.Of course it goes *completely* against what both MS and Intel are doing today...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188364</id>
	<title>smartphone &mdash; a press of a button and you are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258801560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>smartphone &mdash; a press of a button and you are "on."'</p></div><p>I don't know what smartphones they are referring to. My iPhone and my laptop are seldom 'off'. They both go into standby when i'm not using them, the times to come out of standby are very similar, and if I actually had to type a password into my iPhone to bring it out of standby the computer would beat it by far.</p><p>Has Mr Hobbs never turned a smartphone on from a complete off state? There is a negligible difference between booting my iPhone vs my Windows XP laptop. My old HP iPaq wasn't much different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>smartphone    a press of a button and you are " on .
" 'I do n't know what smartphones they are referring to .
My iPhone and my laptop are seldom 'off' .
They both go into standby when i 'm not using them , the times to come out of standby are very similar , and if I actually had to type a password into my iPhone to bring it out of standby the computer would beat it by far.Has Mr Hobbs never turned a smartphone on from a complete off state ?
There is a negligible difference between booting my iPhone vs my Windows XP laptop .
My old HP iPaq was n't much different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>smartphone — a press of a button and you are "on.
"'I don't know what smartphones they are referring to.
My iPhone and my laptop are seldom 'off'.
They both go into standby when i'm not using them, the times to come out of standby are very similar, and if I actually had to type a password into my iPhone to bring it out of standby the computer would beat it by far.Has Mr Hobbs never turned a smartphone on from a complete off state?
There is a negligible difference between booting my iPhone vs my Windows XP laptop.
My old HP iPaq wasn't much different.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189042</id>
	<title>Re:Just works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258806120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PC has been accepted as meaning "an x86 personal computer generally running dos or one of its successors" for roughly 30 years now.  Bitch all you want, but you're not going to change things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PC has been accepted as meaning " an x86 personal computer generally running dos or one of its successors " for roughly 30 years now .
Bitch all you want , but you 're not going to change things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC has been accepted as meaning "an x86 personal computer generally running dos or one of its successors" for roughly 30 years now.
Bitch all you want, but you're not going to change things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193980</id>
	<title>Re:"instant on"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258910040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I'd be complaining about the 1s delay too. 4s is inexcusable slow!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'd be complaining about the 1s delay too .
4s is inexcusable slow !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'd be complaining about the 1s delay too.
4s is inexcusable slow!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191418</id>
	<title>I liked it.</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1258830960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I left windows for this exact reason, I went to Linux. What I use to do and what I do now are totally different. I dont need 1000 services and a million other pieces of shitty software just to do the things I need to do. I listen to music, and go online. Everything I do is Internet centered. I need something that I can type the ocassional txt file, watch hulu, check email and work online. Chrome hit everyone one of those things on the nose, I would like some more control but it does what it is designed to do. And it will get better this is just what alpha? If that?

I dont plan on making the switch, but if I can slap chrome on peoples machines that need just to get online check email etc. Then chrome hits the nail on the head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I left windows for this exact reason , I went to Linux .
What I use to do and what I do now are totally different .
I dont need 1000 services and a million other pieces of shitty software just to do the things I need to do .
I listen to music , and go online .
Everything I do is Internet centered .
I need something that I can type the ocassional txt file , watch hulu , check email and work online .
Chrome hit everyone one of those things on the nose , I would like some more control but it does what it is designed to do .
And it will get better this is just what alpha ?
If that ?
I dont plan on making the switch , but if I can slap chrome on peoples machines that need just to get online check email etc .
Then chrome hits the nail on the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I left windows for this exact reason, I went to Linux.
What I use to do and what I do now are totally different.
I dont need 1000 services and a million other pieces of shitty software just to do the things I need to do.
I listen to music, and go online.
Everything I do is Internet centered.
I need something that I can type the ocassional txt file, watch hulu, check email and work online.
Chrome hit everyone one of those things on the nose, I would like some more control but it does what it is designed to do.
And it will get better this is just what alpha?
If that?
I dont plan on making the switch, but if I can slap chrome on peoples machines that need just to get online check email etc.
Then chrome hits the nail on the head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188378</id>
	<title>Companies slamming rival's products?</title>
	<author>bmecoli</author>
	<datestamp>1258801620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, water is wet.  More at 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , water is wet .
More at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, water is wet.
More at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188950</id>
	<title>It's not for you</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1258805460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's for your friends and relatives who drive you mad with tech support questions. Send them a $100 box, tell them to switch the cables out, and get on with your life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's for your friends and relatives who drive you mad with tech support questions .
Send them a $ 100 box , tell them to switch the cables out , and get on with your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's for your friends and relatives who drive you mad with tech support questions.
Send them a $100 box, tell them to switch the cables out, and get on with your life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188774</id>
	<title>Re:Dang!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258804440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         I am quite certain that Chrome will make a huge impression on Microsoft. Let the whining and bleeding begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am quite certain that Chrome will make a huge impression on Microsoft .
Let the whining and bleeding begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         I am quite certain that Chrome will make a huge impression on Microsoft.
Let the whining and bleeding begin!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188750</id>
	<title>Re:In all the time people have used Windows...</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1258804260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been the default OS for largely the technologically challenged, the sort of people who still think Bill Gates runs Microsoft.</p><p>It's hardly a cheap OS though? it never seems to come down in price even though in reality there is nothing massively new in each release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been the default OS for largely the technologically challenged , the sort of people who still think Bill Gates runs Microsoft.It 's hardly a cheap OS though ?
it never seems to come down in price even though in reality there is nothing massively new in each release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been the default OS for largely the technologically challenged, the sort of people who still think Bill Gates runs Microsoft.It's hardly a cheap OS though?
it never seems to come down in price even though in reality there is nothing massively new in each release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188586</id>
	<title>In Soviet China...</title>
	<author>Bonteaux-le-Kun</author>
	<datestamp>1258803360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Baidu prefers *you*!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Baidu prefers * you * !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Baidu prefers *you*!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190726</id>
	<title>But who is actually impressed?</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1258821660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But who is actually impressed? I have no idea why I need to boot into a browser. I already have Linux and it already has a browser. Besides, it works offline without Google Gears crap as well, as running OpenOffice.org without that Google Docs crap, as well as running Firefox instead of Chrome shit, as well as I can customize it as I want instead of Chromium OS, as well as I can develop for it in any IDE I like.</p><p>Google looks to me like Oracle recently: they have great relational database (same as Google has great search engine) but then everything else is a plain crap, but very nice marketing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who is actually impressed ?
I have no idea why I need to boot into a browser .
I already have Linux and it already has a browser .
Besides , it works offline without Google Gears crap as well , as running OpenOffice.org without that Google Docs crap , as well as running Firefox instead of Chrome shit , as well as I can customize it as I want instead of Chromium OS , as well as I can develop for it in any IDE I like.Google looks to me like Oracle recently : they have great relational database ( same as Google has great search engine ) but then everything else is a plain crap , but very nice marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who is actually impressed?
I have no idea why I need to boot into a browser.
I already have Linux and it already has a browser.
Besides, it works offline without Google Gears crap as well, as running OpenOffice.org without that Google Docs crap, as well as running Firefox instead of Chrome shit, as well as I can customize it as I want instead of Chromium OS, as well as I can develop for it in any IDE I like.Google looks to me like Oracle recently: they have great relational database (same as Google has great search engine) but then everything else is a plain crap, but very nice marketing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30202710</id>
	<title>Ultimate Edition Is Too Good</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258995480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        I normally change distros every few weeks but Ultimate Edition may have changed all of that. It is simply too good to foresee anyone having a better distro for quite some time.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I also burned the latest Knoppix DVD which is almost 4 gigabytes in size and it is really a great distro as well. If people are not using these distros they darned well should be as they seem to be better than anything anyone else has to offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I normally change distros every few weeks but Ultimate Edition may have changed all of that .
It is simply too good to foresee anyone having a better distro for quite some time .
                I also burned the latest Knoppix DVD which is almost 4 gigabytes in size and it is really a great distro as well .
If people are not using these distros they darned well should be as they seem to be better than anything anyone else has to offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        I normally change distros every few weeks but Ultimate Edition may have changed all of that.
It is simply too good to foresee anyone having a better distro for quite some time.
                I also burned the latest Knoppix DVD which is almost 4 gigabytes in size and it is really a great distro as well.
If people are not using these distros they darned well should be as they seem to be better than anything anyone else has to offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189748</id>
	<title>Re:"instant on"</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1258812300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  My users were complaining recently about the speed at which reports for building inspections pulled up (I didn't write the app nor the reports).  Apparently the report takes 5-6 seconds to pull up, which according to one of the irate users "doesn't seem like long, but when you got to do it for like 40 inspections a day it adds up".  Yeah, adds up to a whole 2-3 minutes of your day . . .</p><p>What's bad is that there's a bulk report that prints ALL their inspections that takes about as much time as the single report does (I think most of the "slowness" is in loading the reporting module, not running the report itself), but they don't do that because they "prefer to run them separately".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
My users were complaining recently about the speed at which reports for building inspections pulled up ( I did n't write the app nor the reports ) .
Apparently the report takes 5-6 seconds to pull up , which according to one of the irate users " does n't seem like long , but when you got to do it for like 40 inspections a day it adds up " .
Yeah , adds up to a whole 2-3 minutes of your day .
. .What 's bad is that there 's a bulk report that prints ALL their inspections that takes about as much time as the single report does ( I think most of the " slowness " is in loading the reporting module , not running the report itself ) , but they do n't do that because they " prefer to run them separately " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
My users were complaining recently about the speed at which reports for building inspections pulled up (I didn't write the app nor the reports).
Apparently the report takes 5-6 seconds to pull up, which according to one of the irate users "doesn't seem like long, but when you got to do it for like 40 inspections a day it adds up".
Yeah, adds up to a whole 2-3 minutes of your day .
. .What's bad is that there's a bulk report that prints ALL their inspections that takes about as much time as the single report does (I think most of the "slowness" is in loading the reporting module, not running the report itself), but they don't do that because they "prefer to run them separately".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188526</id>
	<title>Non-news</title>
	<author>RoFLKOPTr</author>
	<datestamp>1258802820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story is posted as though it's surprising that companies would show disapproval towards their competitors products, claiming that their own are superior.</p><p>Can we please not post stories merely for the sake of finding another reason for people to bitch about Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story is posted as though it 's surprising that companies would show disapproval towards their competitors products , claiming that their own are superior.Can we please not post stories merely for the sake of finding another reason for people to bitch about Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story is posted as though it's surprising that companies would show disapproval towards their competitors products, claiming that their own are superior.Can we please not post stories merely for the sake of finding another reason for people to bitch about Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191226</id>
	<title>Re:Even if they were impressed, stunned even...</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1258828620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrubuntu ftaghn?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrubuntu ftaghn ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrubuntu ftaghn?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190924</id>
	<title>Re:Car Analogy for MS Spokesperson</title>
	<author>quarterbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1258824420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I have found google's products amazingly useful <br>
At a place where I used to consult, they use a Bloomberg machine to get financial data. Then they export it out to excel and then from there to either 3rd party toolkits or write macros in excel to analyze it. It was often a problem that data was not always up-to-date or that two versions were over written. (It's a finance firm, and they like excel to look at data. Obviously, no source control either) <br> <br>
Turns out Google can do the whole thing for you.Google Finance has the data, which you can pull into google docs using functions and then you can write functions to generate results. It does not have macros, but you can get pretty close using standard functions. Best part is that the data is always automatically updated since the whole thing is "on the cloud". The cost savings on Bloomberg ($20 K per year), Excel (~$100<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/year), computer +Electricity (~600<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/year), a human being to keep data updated/versioned ($10 K<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/year for the task) - is enormous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I have found google 's products amazingly useful At a place where I used to consult , they use a Bloomberg machine to get financial data .
Then they export it out to excel and then from there to either 3rd party toolkits or write macros in excel to analyze it .
It was often a problem that data was not always up-to-date or that two versions were over written .
( It 's a finance firm , and they like excel to look at data .
Obviously , no source control either ) Turns out Google can do the whole thing for you.Google Finance has the data , which you can pull into google docs using functions and then you can write functions to generate results .
It does not have macros , but you can get pretty close using standard functions .
Best part is that the data is always automatically updated since the whole thing is " on the cloud " .
The cost savings on Bloomberg ( $ 20 K per year ) , Excel ( ~ $ 100 /year ) , computer + Electricity ( ~ 600 /year ) , a human being to keep data updated/versioned ( $ 10 K /year for the task ) - is enormous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I have found google's products amazingly useful 
At a place where I used to consult, they use a Bloomberg machine to get financial data.
Then they export it out to excel and then from there to either 3rd party toolkits or write macros in excel to analyze it.
It was often a problem that data was not always up-to-date or that two versions were over written.
(It's a finance firm, and they like excel to look at data.
Obviously, no source control either)  
Turns out Google can do the whole thing for you.Google Finance has the data, which you can pull into google docs using functions and then you can write functions to generate results.
It does not have macros, but you can get pretty close using standard functions.
Best part is that the data is always automatically updated since the whole thing is "on the cloud".
The cost savings on Bloomberg ($20 K per year), Excel (~$100 /year), computer +Electricity (~600 /year), a human being to keep data updated/versioned ($10 K /year for the task) - is enormous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30199928</id>
	<title>Re:ChromeOS == crippleware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259007780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time, apps work offline</p><p>http://gears.google.com/ [google.com]</p><p>General Info: Where can I use Gears?<br>Gears works with a select group of sites that are specifically designed for compatibility.</p><p>
&nbsp; so the web needs to comply to googles terms to work ofline?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time , apps work offlinehttp : //gears.google.com/ [ google.com ] General Info : Where can I use Gears ? Gears works with a select group of sites that are specifically designed for compatibility .
  so the web needs to comply to googles terms to work ofline ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time, apps work offlinehttp://gears.google.com/ [google.com]General Info: Where can I use Gears?Gears works with a select group of sites that are specifically designed for compatibility.
  so the web needs to comply to googles terms to work ofline?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274</id>
	<title>Just works?</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1258801020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7 just works -- across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs</p></div></blockquote><p>
And it "just works" on ARM processors? So "PC" should really be "x86-based PC".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 just works -- across the Web and on the desktop , and on all sizes and types of PCs And it " just works " on ARM processors ?
So " PC " should really be " x86-based PC " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 just works -- across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs
And it "just works" on ARM processors?
So "PC" should really be "x86-based PC".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189692</id>
	<title>Not a substitute for OS</title>
	<author>robinvanleeuwen</author>
	<datestamp>1258811760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a look at google Chrome through virtualbox, and i think that the media is a bit to eager with the "ChromeOS: the next Win7 killer???" headlines. If you look at it that way, i think it's definatley not. It's not a replacement for any current desktop OS. And me thinks it's not intended that way. It's just a OS with everything stripped but the browser. If you just need a browser, it's OK. If you want something besides a browser it's not sufficient. So for a netbook it suits fine i think. Maybe even for joe-sixpack on a regular PC, but as soon as joe-sixpack wants to do anything more than browsing ChromeOS is not enough. It's comparing apples and oranges when you compare it with any regular desktop OS. Maybe the classification InternetOS instead of desktop OS (although i don't think google ever said it was) would be better....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a look at google Chrome through virtualbox , and i think that the media is a bit to eager with the " ChromeOS : the next Win7 killer ? ? ?
" headlines .
If you look at it that way , i think it 's definatley not .
It 's not a replacement for any current desktop OS .
And me thinks it 's not intended that way .
It 's just a OS with everything stripped but the browser .
If you just need a browser , it 's OK. If you want something besides a browser it 's not sufficient .
So for a netbook it suits fine i think .
Maybe even for joe-sixpack on a regular PC , but as soon as joe-sixpack wants to do anything more than browsing ChromeOS is not enough .
It 's comparing apples and oranges when you compare it with any regular desktop OS .
Maybe the classification InternetOS instead of desktop OS ( although i do n't think google ever said it was ) would be better... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a look at google Chrome through virtualbox, and i think that the media is a bit to eager with the "ChromeOS: the next Win7 killer???
" headlines.
If you look at it that way, i think it's definatley not.
It's not a replacement for any current desktop OS.
And me thinks it's not intended that way.
It's just a OS with everything stripped but the browser.
If you just need a browser, it's OK. If you want something besides a browser it's not sufficient.
So for a netbook it suits fine i think.
Maybe even for joe-sixpack on a regular PC, but as soon as joe-sixpack wants to do anything more than browsing ChromeOS is not enough.
It's comparing apples and oranges when you compare it with any regular desktop OS.
Maybe the classification InternetOS instead of desktop OS (although i don't think google ever said it was) would be better....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192986</id>
	<title>Re:Even if they were impressed, stunned even...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258901940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the next-gen Citrix/Terminal Server.  For a home user who needs to run Visio - no this is not currently a replacement but for mom and pop and facebook/myspacers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....this is a perfect tool.<br>What are those horrible words for a business - "We have always done it this way".  Now there is a new way.</p><p>Do you care how your refrigerator works ? Or your heater/AC ?  Of course not - because they are now an appliance.<br>Computing devices (should not even call them that - perhaps "data interface" is better ) have become appliances as well.</p><p>I mean, really<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. who cares if their computer runs windows 7 or 98 IF it gets to where they want and plays their games.<br>This is exactly the same issues hybrid car makers went through when the Prius first came out.  Now everybody ( except those people who still think they need a status symbol car ) accepts them as a perfectly fine mode of transportation - just like a the transition from old bag phones to Iphones, Sidekicks and Crackberries.</p><p>Wanna see what I am talking about ?  Go watch a group of 14 year old girls use their phones.  They can all use each others devices equally as well because it is not about the platform ( sorry Microsoft ) its about what/where they are going.</p><p>That is why Google and other cloud people are going to win.  The model T ( windows) has been replaced and people have choice and are using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the next-gen Citrix/Terminal Server .
For a home user who needs to run Visio - no this is not currently a replacement but for mom and pop and facebook/myspacers ....this is a perfect tool.What are those horrible words for a business - " We have always done it this way " .
Now there is a new way.Do you care how your refrigerator works ?
Or your heater/AC ?
Of course not - because they are now an appliance.Computing devices ( should not even call them that - perhaps " data interface " is better ) have become appliances as well.I mean , really .. who cares if their computer runs windows 7 or 98 IF it gets to where they want and plays their games.This is exactly the same issues hybrid car makers went through when the Prius first came out .
Now everybody ( except those people who still think they need a status symbol car ) accepts them as a perfectly fine mode of transportation - just like a the transition from old bag phones to Iphones , Sidekicks and Crackberries.Wan na see what I am talking about ?
Go watch a group of 14 year old girls use their phones .
They can all use each others devices equally as well because it is not about the platform ( sorry Microsoft ) its about what/where they are going.That is why Google and other cloud people are going to win .
The model T ( windows ) has been replaced and people have choice and are using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the next-gen Citrix/Terminal Server.
For a home user who needs to run Visio - no this is not currently a replacement but for mom and pop and facebook/myspacers ....this is a perfect tool.What are those horrible words for a business - "We have always done it this way".
Now there is a new way.Do you care how your refrigerator works ?
Or your heater/AC ?
Of course not - because they are now an appliance.Computing devices (should not even call them that - perhaps "data interface" is better ) have become appliances as well.I mean, really .. who cares if their computer runs windows 7 or 98 IF it gets to where they want and plays their games.This is exactly the same issues hybrid car makers went through when the Prius first came out.
Now everybody ( except those people who still think they need a status symbol car ) accepts them as a perfectly fine mode of transportation - just like a the transition from old bag phones to Iphones, Sidekicks and Crackberries.Wanna see what I am talking about ?
Go watch a group of 14 year old girls use their phones.
They can all use each others devices equally as well because it is not about the platform ( sorry Microsoft ) its about what/where they are going.That is why Google and other cloud people are going to win.
The model T ( windows) has been replaced and people have choice and are using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288</id>
	<title>Car Analogy for MS Spokesperson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258801080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason your customers won't be interested in Chrome OS as a replacement for 7 is the same reason pickup-truck drivers aren't interested in motorcycles as replacements.<br> <br>It's scratching a different itch, although I'm a little skeptical that anyone's seriously itching hard for a minimal OS capable of running only a web browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason your customers wo n't be interested in Chrome OS as a replacement for 7 is the same reason pickup-truck drivers are n't interested in motorcycles as replacements .
It 's scratching a different itch , although I 'm a little skeptical that anyone 's seriously itching hard for a minimal OS capable of running only a web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason your customers won't be interested in Chrome OS as a replacement for 7 is the same reason pickup-truck drivers aren't interested in motorcycles as replacements.
It's scratching a different itch, although I'm a little skeptical that anyone's seriously itching hard for a minimal OS capable of running only a web browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188656</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>quickOnTheUptake</author>
	<datestamp>1258803720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this take on it is too short-sighted. MS's business model is based on native applications. They want people mainly using outlook to read their mail. They want people editing documents in Word. <br>Google's business strategy is to get people spending as much time in a browser as possible. They want to replace all those native apps with Web apps that run on any machine with a browser and network connection.
<br>These are two very different models. MS makes loads of money on Office. And it makes considerable money on Windows (which you need to run lots of your non-MS native software). If people start replacing Office with GDocs, MS loses a lot of money. If people stop relying on Windows-only apps to the point that they will seriously consider a well done, manufacturer customized , free OS, MS losses even more.
<br>
Chrome OS is one more little step towards Google's goal. If you are using GDocs and Gmail on Chrome, odds are not slim you are going to just stop using Office and Outlook altogether, even on your main desktop. After all, your stuff if already in Google docs.<br>
But the big picture is 10 years down the road. If MS lets this sort of computer experience catch on,  if it gives Google a chance to develop compelling replacements for standard apps, ones that run just as well on a free OS on cheap ARM hardware, in 10 years they may need a very different buisness model than the one that has treated them so well for the last 20.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this take on it is too short-sighted .
MS 's business model is based on native applications .
They want people mainly using outlook to read their mail .
They want people editing documents in Word .
Google 's business strategy is to get people spending as much time in a browser as possible .
They want to replace all those native apps with Web apps that run on any machine with a browser and network connection .
These are two very different models .
MS makes loads of money on Office .
And it makes considerable money on Windows ( which you need to run lots of your non-MS native software ) .
If people start replacing Office with GDocs , MS loses a lot of money .
If people stop relying on Windows-only apps to the point that they will seriously consider a well done , manufacturer customized , free OS , MS losses even more .
Chrome OS is one more little step towards Google 's goal .
If you are using GDocs and Gmail on Chrome , odds are not slim you are going to just stop using Office and Outlook altogether , even on your main desktop .
After all , your stuff if already in Google docs .
But the big picture is 10 years down the road .
If MS lets this sort of computer experience catch on , if it gives Google a chance to develop compelling replacements for standard apps , ones that run just as well on a free OS on cheap ARM hardware , in 10 years they may need a very different buisness model than the one that has treated them so well for the last 20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this take on it is too short-sighted.
MS's business model is based on native applications.
They want people mainly using outlook to read their mail.
They want people editing documents in Word.
Google's business strategy is to get people spending as much time in a browser as possible.
They want to replace all those native apps with Web apps that run on any machine with a browser and network connection.
These are two very different models.
MS makes loads of money on Office.
And it makes considerable money on Windows (which you need to run lots of your non-MS native software).
If people start replacing Office with GDocs, MS loses a lot of money.
If people stop relying on Windows-only apps to the point that they will seriously consider a well done, manufacturer customized , free OS, MS losses even more.
Chrome OS is one more little step towards Google's goal.
If you are using GDocs and Gmail on Chrome, odds are not slim you are going to just stop using Office and Outlook altogether, even on your main desktop.
After all, your stuff if already in Google docs.
But the big picture is 10 years down the road.
If MS lets this sort of computer experience catch on,  if it gives Google a chance to develop compelling replacements for standard apps, ones that run just as well on a free OS on cheap ARM hardware, in 10 years they may need a very different buisness model than the one that has treated them so well for the last 20.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188912</id>
	<title>Re:Dang!</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1258805280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are a lot of corporate workers out there that do their daily thing via citrix or similar remote desktop access...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are a lot of corporate workers out there that do their daily thing via citrix or similar remote desktop access.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are a lot of corporate workers out there that do their daily thing via citrix or similar remote desktop access...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189116</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1258806600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think moblin had the right idea. The interface is primarily designed around a browser, one that is efficient with screen space on a 10 inch screen, but can still run most linux apps. Boot time isn't quite 7 seconds, but I can pull my phone out of my pocket for faster access to my e-mail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think moblin had the right idea .
The interface is primarily designed around a browser , one that is efficient with screen space on a 10 inch screen , but can still run most linux apps .
Boot time is n't quite 7 seconds , but I can pull my phone out of my pocket for faster access to my e-mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think moblin had the right idea.
The interface is primarily designed around a browser, one that is efficient with screen space on a 10 inch screen, but can still run most linux apps.
Boot time isn't quite 7 seconds, but I can pull my phone out of my pocket for faster access to my e-mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188780</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>patlabor</author>
	<datestamp>1258804440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google hasn't invented anything with their OS. It is basically a thin client that uses the internet instead of an intranet.</p><p>The biggest danger here is the potential for competitor lock-out. But as we've seen with Microsoft, there will just be lawsuits that will open it up the platform for fair competition (at least, theoretically).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has n't invented anything with their OS .
It is basically a thin client that uses the internet instead of an intranet.The biggest danger here is the potential for competitor lock-out .
But as we 've seen with Microsoft , there will just be lawsuits that will open it up the platform for fair competition ( at least , theoretically ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google hasn't invented anything with their OS.
It is basically a thin client that uses the internet instead of an intranet.The biggest danger here is the potential for competitor lock-out.
But as we've seen with Microsoft, there will just be lawsuits that will open it up the platform for fair competition (at least, theoretically).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190088</id>
	<title>Re:In all the time people have used Windows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258814760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome is good enough to steal a good slab of market share - AND keep eyes on its search/ad engine - not others.</p><p>1) iPhone - people buy apps and download tunes<br>2) A lot of iPhones sold<br>3) The money pie shrinks, and apple says thanks.<br>4) Crippled devices that are good, get unlocked / Jailbreaked.<br>5) Fewer 'One eyed' 'one os' people. MultiOS'ed and Multilingual.</p><p>Of course MS will rubbish it - MS dont want price caps - or joe public finding out netbook software is 1/10th the price for the same OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome is good enough to steal a good slab of market share - AND keep eyes on its search/ad engine - not others.1 ) iPhone - people buy apps and download tunes2 ) A lot of iPhones sold3 ) The money pie shrinks , and apple says thanks.4 ) Crippled devices that are good , get unlocked / Jailbreaked.5 ) Fewer 'One eyed ' 'one os ' people .
MultiOS'ed and Multilingual.Of course MS will rubbish it - MS dont want price caps - or joe public finding out netbook software is 1/10th the price for the same OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome is good enough to steal a good slab of market share - AND keep eyes on its search/ad engine - not others.1) iPhone - people buy apps and download tunes2) A lot of iPhones sold3) The money pie shrinks, and apple says thanks.4) Crippled devices that are good, get unlocked / Jailbreaked.5) Fewer 'One eyed' 'one os' people.
MultiOS'ed and Multilingual.Of course MS will rubbish it - MS dont want price caps - or joe public finding out netbook software is 1/10th the price for the same OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189634</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1258811040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google is making an appliance OS, where as SplashTop is designed as a light fast-booting OS.</p> </div><p>Forgive me here, but what's the difference?</p><p>A light fast-booting OS *is* an appliance OS, it boots up in no time, and lets you run apps, typically ones geared to a specific task.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is making an appliance OS , where as SplashTop is designed as a light fast-booting OS .
Forgive me here , but what 's the difference ? A light fast-booting OS * is * an appliance OS , it boots up in no time , and lets you run apps , typically ones geared to a specific task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is making an appliance OS, where as SplashTop is designed as a light fast-booting OS.
Forgive me here, but what's the difference?A light fast-booting OS *is* an appliance OS, it boots up in no time, and lets you run apps, typically ones geared to a specific task.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192388</id>
	<title>Microsoft, evil and stupid as always.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1258892760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is impossible to be impressed with Chrome OS. Is just a linux that start a browser in 7 seconds. Well... is a achievement, but not a earth breaking one.</p><p>The comment from Microsoft....  is infuriating,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..his last shit of a OS, Windows 7,  hardly will run on my netbook. My netbook got released with 512 MB of RAM, and 4GB of hard disk, has not moving parts and runs fantastic.  Windows 7 for all I see, need more than 600 MB to run, and about 10 GB of hard disk for himself. Heck..  his design waste screen space like is a feature or something.  If theres a OS that is NOT optimized for netbooks is the Windows 7.  Probably is one of the good windows, and is followed by a bad one, so we can probabbly say "best than Vista", and let it here.  How can somhome be so intelectually malicious, lack any moral sense, to suggest than Windows 7 is anything good for netbooks?  The guys a liar the size of texas, but how a guy can tell lieas that big, knowing everybody know are lieas.. He has not shame? ridiculous and sad.</p><p><b>Most, maybe all, Netbooks release with windows are released with XP. This microsoft dude is stupid or a liar, maybe both.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is impossible to be impressed with Chrome OS .
Is just a linux that start a browser in 7 seconds .
Well... is a achievement , but not a earth breaking one.The comment from Microsoft.... is infuriating , ..his last shit of a OS , Windows 7 , hardly will run on my netbook .
My netbook got released with 512 MB of RAM , and 4GB of hard disk , has not moving parts and runs fantastic .
Windows 7 for all I see , need more than 600 MB to run , and about 10 GB of hard disk for himself .
Heck.. his design waste screen space like is a feature or something .
If theres a OS that is NOT optimized for netbooks is the Windows 7 .
Probably is one of the good windows , and is followed by a bad one , so we can probabbly say " best than Vista " , and let it here .
How can somhome be so intelectually malicious , lack any moral sense , to suggest than Windows 7 is anything good for netbooks ?
The guys a liar the size of texas , but how a guy can tell lieas that big , knowing everybody know are lieas.. He has not shame ?
ridiculous and sad.Most , maybe all , Netbooks release with windows are released with XP .
This microsoft dude is stupid or a liar , maybe both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is impossible to be impressed with Chrome OS.
Is just a linux that start a browser in 7 seconds.
Well... is a achievement, but not a earth breaking one.The comment from Microsoft....  is infuriating, ..his last shit of a OS, Windows 7,  hardly will run on my netbook.
My netbook got released with 512 MB of RAM, and 4GB of hard disk, has not moving parts and runs fantastic.
Windows 7 for all I see, need more than 600 MB to run, and about 10 GB of hard disk for himself.
Heck..  his design waste screen space like is a feature or something.
If theres a OS that is NOT optimized for netbooks is the Windows 7.
Probably is one of the good windows, and is followed by a bad one, so we can probabbly say "best than Vista", and let it here.
How can somhome be so intelectually malicious, lack any moral sense, to suggest than Windows 7 is anything good for netbooks?
The guys a liar the size of texas, but how a guy can tell lieas that big, knowing everybody know are lieas.. He has not shame?
ridiculous and sad.Most, maybe all, Netbooks release with windows are released with XP.
This microsoft dude is stupid or a liar, maybe both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188988</id>
	<title>Re:The point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258805640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>any remotely competent user would agree.  Just start up a browser and fullscreen, you have the experience</p><p>however, their target is a demographic that presumably exists who views that as too hard.  I'm skeptical and will personally have zero interest in a platform that intentionally has a subset of function compared to my current platfork, but that is the idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>any remotely competent user would agree .
Just start up a browser and fullscreen , you have the experiencehowever , their target is a demographic that presumably exists who views that as too hard .
I 'm skeptical and will personally have zero interest in a platform that intentionally has a subset of function compared to my current platfork , but that is the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>any remotely competent user would agree.
Just start up a browser and fullscreen, you have the experiencehowever, their target is a demographic that presumably exists who views that as too hard.
I'm skeptical and will personally have zero interest in a platform that intentionally has a subset of function compared to my current platfork, but that is the idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192036</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>Nithendil</author>
	<datestamp>1258885380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is a computer fast enough to browse the internet with flash without major hickups is fast enough to runs tons of modern software too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is a computer fast enough to browse the internet with flash without major hickups is fast enough to runs tons of modern software too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is a computer fast enough to browse the internet with flash without major hickups is fast enough to runs tons of modern software too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188548</id>
	<title>Maybe it isn't the reboot time which is the prob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258803000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the fact that you need to reboot in the first place. The whole idea of rebooting is really getting old. There used to be a time back in the 50s when you needed to "reboot" (unfreeze and refreeze) your refrigerator from time to time, but we went past that. You don't "reboot" your TV or your Car (even though both are running internal software), why the fuck should you routinely have to reboot your computer?? Rebooting is warranted when a major system change is being made, in either hardware or software; but not for simply turning off the system. Yes, we already have sleep/hybernation modes, but they are still in their infancy compared to what they should be like. I'll consider them mature when, in the mind of Joe Sixpack, "turning off" his computer (so it doesn't make noise or eat electricity), either via shutdown or via simple external power cutoff, would mean an immediate going into passive mode, without losing the current machine's state. It'll probably require some internal capacitor to be able to save the memory and whatnot when there's no power, but this should be done automatically, silently, and transparently; for all intents and purposes (except, perhaps, hardware changes) the user should consider the computer as already having been turned off. Conversely, an OS should be able to run indefinitely, running \_any\_ task or combination thereof, without keeping clogging up memory with useless shit that isn't freed when not used anymore, which eventually forces a "hard" reboot. If anything, there should be a way to "purge" unused or dubiously-used memory, potentially shutting off some background processes, but without shutting off the OS or interfering with applications currently actively used by the user. Said Joe Sixpack would then consider this process as exactly meaning "turning off" and "turning on", continuing this process indefinitely (up to months and years if needed be), without any loss of performance on behalf of the machine. Finally, we live in a hot-plug era with many hardware devices, so why the fuck is so much software still stuck in the 20th century and requires to do a reboot to install (I shouldn't have to care about driver or concurrency issues in the kernel, as modern software should be sufficiently abstracted away from the hardware to be able to install user-level devices without fucking with the OS kernel). A "real" reboot should not be done except when it's actually needed in order to complete a \_major\_ system change (and installing any kind of user application doesn't count as "major" in my book). And when that happens, the time it takes to do a "real" reboot will be moot, as it would be done quite rarely, especially for the average user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the fact that you need to reboot in the first place .
The whole idea of rebooting is really getting old .
There used to be a time back in the 50s when you needed to " reboot " ( unfreeze and refreeze ) your refrigerator from time to time , but we went past that .
You do n't " reboot " your TV or your Car ( even though both are running internal software ) , why the fuck should you routinely have to reboot your computer ? ?
Rebooting is warranted when a major system change is being made , in either hardware or software ; but not for simply turning off the system .
Yes , we already have sleep/hybernation modes , but they are still in their infancy compared to what they should be like .
I 'll consider them mature when , in the mind of Joe Sixpack , " turning off " his computer ( so it does n't make noise or eat electricity ) , either via shutdown or via simple external power cutoff , would mean an immediate going into passive mode , without losing the current machine 's state .
It 'll probably require some internal capacitor to be able to save the memory and whatnot when there 's no power , but this should be done automatically , silently , and transparently ; for all intents and purposes ( except , perhaps , hardware changes ) the user should consider the computer as already having been turned off .
Conversely , an OS should be able to run indefinitely , running \ _any \ _ task or combination thereof , without keeping clogging up memory with useless shit that is n't freed when not used anymore , which eventually forces a " hard " reboot .
If anything , there should be a way to " purge " unused or dubiously-used memory , potentially shutting off some background processes , but without shutting off the OS or interfering with applications currently actively used by the user .
Said Joe Sixpack would then consider this process as exactly meaning " turning off " and " turning on " , continuing this process indefinitely ( up to months and years if needed be ) , without any loss of performance on behalf of the machine .
Finally , we live in a hot-plug era with many hardware devices , so why the fuck is so much software still stuck in the 20th century and requires to do a reboot to install ( I should n't have to care about driver or concurrency issues in the kernel , as modern software should be sufficiently abstracted away from the hardware to be able to install user-level devices without fucking with the OS kernel ) .
A " real " reboot should not be done except when it 's actually needed in order to complete a \ _major \ _ system change ( and installing any kind of user application does n't count as " major " in my book ) .
And when that happens , the time it takes to do a " real " reboot will be moot , as it would be done quite rarely , especially for the average user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the fact that you need to reboot in the first place.
The whole idea of rebooting is really getting old.
There used to be a time back in the 50s when you needed to "reboot" (unfreeze and refreeze) your refrigerator from time to time, but we went past that.
You don't "reboot" your TV or your Car (even though both are running internal software), why the fuck should you routinely have to reboot your computer??
Rebooting is warranted when a major system change is being made, in either hardware or software; but not for simply turning off the system.
Yes, we already have sleep/hybernation modes, but they are still in their infancy compared to what they should be like.
I'll consider them mature when, in the mind of Joe Sixpack, "turning off" his computer (so it doesn't make noise or eat electricity), either via shutdown or via simple external power cutoff, would mean an immediate going into passive mode, without losing the current machine's state.
It'll probably require some internal capacitor to be able to save the memory and whatnot when there's no power, but this should be done automatically, silently, and transparently; for all intents and purposes (except, perhaps, hardware changes) the user should consider the computer as already having been turned off.
Conversely, an OS should be able to run indefinitely, running \_any\_ task or combination thereof, without keeping clogging up memory with useless shit that isn't freed when not used anymore, which eventually forces a "hard" reboot.
If anything, there should be a way to "purge" unused or dubiously-used memory, potentially shutting off some background processes, but without shutting off the OS or interfering with applications currently actively used by the user.
Said Joe Sixpack would then consider this process as exactly meaning "turning off" and "turning on", continuing this process indefinitely (up to months and years if needed be), without any loss of performance on behalf of the machine.
Finally, we live in a hot-plug era with many hardware devices, so why the fuck is so much software still stuck in the 20th century and requires to do a reboot to install (I shouldn't have to care about driver or concurrency issues in the kernel, as modern software should be sufficiently abstracted away from the hardware to be able to install user-level devices without fucking with the OS kernel).
A "real" reboot should not be done except when it's actually needed in order to complete a \_major\_ system change (and installing any kind of user application doesn't count as "major" in my book).
And when that happens, the time it takes to do a "real" reboot will be moot, as it would be done quite rarely, especially for the average user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190502</id>
	<title>Holy Internet Appliance Batman!!</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1258818720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Microsoft is going to "slam" Google's Chrome OS.  So what.  Microsoft's bias is irrelevant.  Chrome OS is Linux.  Slapping on the Google name may get a few suckers to bite, but ultimately Chrome OS will achieve the same market share as any other Linux.  And the few people who actually do buy it will be stuck with a tiny underpowered laptop with limited use.</p><p>Remember the "Internet Appliance", WebTV and dedicated word processors.  Netbooks will end up in the same dustbin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Microsoft is going to " slam " Google 's Chrome OS .
So what .
Microsoft 's bias is irrelevant .
Chrome OS is Linux .
Slapping on the Google name may get a few suckers to bite , but ultimately Chrome OS will achieve the same market share as any other Linux .
And the few people who actually do buy it will be stuck with a tiny underpowered laptop with limited use.Remember the " Internet Appliance " , WebTV and dedicated word processors .
Netbooks will end up in the same dustbin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Microsoft is going to "slam" Google's Chrome OS.
So what.
Microsoft's bias is irrelevant.
Chrome OS is Linux.
Slapping on the Google name may get a few suckers to bite, but ultimately Chrome OS will achieve the same market share as any other Linux.
And the few people who actually do buy it will be stuck with a tiny underpowered laptop with limited use.Remember the "Internet Appliance", WebTV and dedicated word processors.
Netbooks will end up in the same dustbin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192364</id>
	<title>A real user experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258891980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok... so, there I am. Having a PIII Sony Vaio notebook with 128 mb and my mom, a user that has not been on a pc since like the MS-DOS time.<br>She wants to e-mail and do some browsing. If possible watching some photo's. That's it for here.</p><p>Let's review the OS market at this time:</p><p>
&nbsp; - Windows:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Windows 98: ow... can't do that anymore. NO GO<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Windows 2000 can run on this machine, sloooowwwww... and way too complicated. MAYBE HALF A GO.<br>
&nbsp; - Mac OS X: can't run it, not an apple. NO GO.<br>
&nbsp; - Linux:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Ubuntu (Netbook Remix): Not even able to install it. 128mb seems to little. And remember: the Ubuntu CD is 780mb.... way to big to burn on a 700mb disk! NO GO.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Xubuntu/Kubunut: same story NO GO.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Knoppix: Doesn't like the fact that the CD-player on a sony vaio is via pcmcia... NO GO.<br>- HyperSpace: ah, that will cost money. NO GO.<br>- DeviceVM's Splashtop: uhn... it's not a new PC, so it's not supported... NO GO.<br>- Google OS: ah... so there is a market. PROBABLY A GO if hardware is supported correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok... so , there I am .
Having a PIII Sony Vaio notebook with 128 mb and my mom , a user that has not been on a pc since like the MS-DOS time.She wants to e-mail and do some browsing .
If possible watching some photo 's .
That 's it for here.Let 's review the OS market at this time :   - Windows :       Windows 98 : ow... ca n't do that anymore .
NO GO       Windows 2000 can run on this machine , sloooowwwww... and way too complicated .
MAYBE HALF A GO .
  - Mac OS X : ca n't run it , not an apple .
NO GO .
  - Linux :       Ubuntu ( Netbook Remix ) : Not even able to install it .
128mb seems to little .
And remember : the Ubuntu CD is 780mb.... way to big to burn on a 700mb disk !
NO GO .
      Xubuntu/Kubunut : same story NO GO .
      Knoppix : Does n't like the fact that the CD-player on a sony vaio is via pcmcia... NO GO.- HyperSpace : ah , that will cost money .
NO GO.- DeviceVM 's Splashtop : uhn... it 's not a new PC , so it 's not supported... NO GO.- Google OS : ah... so there is a market .
PROBABLY A GO if hardware is supported correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok... so, there I am.
Having a PIII Sony Vaio notebook with 128 mb and my mom, a user that has not been on a pc since like the MS-DOS time.She wants to e-mail and do some browsing.
If possible watching some photo's.
That's it for here.Let's review the OS market at this time:
  - Windows:
      Windows 98: ow... can't do that anymore.
NO GO
      Windows 2000 can run on this machine, sloooowwwww... and way too complicated.
MAYBE HALF A GO.
  - Mac OS X: can't run it, not an apple.
NO GO.
  - Linux:
      Ubuntu (Netbook Remix): Not even able to install it.
128mb seems to little.
And remember: the Ubuntu CD is 780mb.... way to big to burn on a 700mb disk!
NO GO.
      Xubuntu/Kubunut: same story NO GO.
      Knoppix: Doesn't like the fact that the CD-player on a sony vaio is via pcmcia... NO GO.- HyperSpace: ah, that will cost money.
NO GO.- DeviceVM's Splashtop: uhn... it's not a new PC, so it's not supported... NO GO.- Google OS: ah... so there is a market.
PROBABLY A GO if hardware is supported correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188356</id>
	<title>Approval?</title>
	<author>zetsurin</author>
	<datestamp>1258801500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting how MS notes that users are voicing their approval of Windows 7.  One could argue that this vocal approval is more due to the fact that people weren't impressed with Vista, and without the relative failure of Vista, Windows 7 would likely have been a lot more quietly received.

To see MS come out making statements like these, makes me think that Chrome could be the more of a game changer than I thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how MS notes that users are voicing their approval of Windows 7 .
One could argue that this vocal approval is more due to the fact that people were n't impressed with Vista , and without the relative failure of Vista , Windows 7 would likely have been a lot more quietly received .
To see MS come out making statements like these , makes me think that Chrome could be the more of a game changer than I thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how MS notes that users are voicing their approval of Windows 7.
One could argue that this vocal approval is more due to the fact that people weren't impressed with Vista, and without the relative failure of Vista, Windows 7 would likely have been a lot more quietly received.
To see MS come out making statements like these, makes me think that Chrome could be the more of a game changer than I thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30199150</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>Wayne247</author>
	<datestamp>1258908600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on being born from a family tree of geniuses.</p><p>What the author of the post means is that for every mom and pop out there except yours, they will find a device such as this to be their main choice of "computerinternetthing".</p><p>The fact that your grandpa can use Excel to make a spreadsheet is pointless to the fact that old people of any generation have a hard time dealing with the top technology of the same time. So this device is the WebTV that Microsoft knew was a good idea ten years ago, but in a working condition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on being born from a family tree of geniuses.What the author of the post means is that for every mom and pop out there except yours , they will find a device such as this to be their main choice of " computerinternetthing " .The fact that your grandpa can use Excel to make a spreadsheet is pointless to the fact that old people of any generation have a hard time dealing with the top technology of the same time .
So this device is the WebTV that Microsoft knew was a good idea ten years ago , but in a working condition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on being born from a family tree of geniuses.What the author of the post means is that for every mom and pop out there except yours, they will find a device such as this to be their main choice of "computerinternetthing".The fact that your grandpa can use Excel to make a spreadsheet is pointless to the fact that old people of any generation have a hard time dealing with the top technology of the same time.
So this device is the WebTV that Microsoft knew was a good idea ten years ago, but in a working condition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189828</id>
	<title>Press a button and smartphone is on?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258812960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HAHAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHA. I guess this guy has never really used a Smartphone that was off off? I had a Samsung SCH-i730 and SCH-i760 (Both WinMobile) which took a bit to boot and become useful, and now a Blacberry Storm. If the Storm is fully powered down, and I turn it on, it takes about 3 and a half minutes to boot up to the point of "I can make a call". What this means is if I go into some bathroom at a bar, and some drunk bastard puts moves on me, before I could power up and call 911, him and all his friends could run a train on my ass and be gone. Now what about this "push a button and it's instantly on" crap?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HAHAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHA .
I guess this guy has never really used a Smartphone that was off off ?
I had a Samsung SCH-i730 and SCH-i760 ( Both WinMobile ) which took a bit to boot and become useful , and now a Blacberry Storm .
If the Storm is fully powered down , and I turn it on , it takes about 3 and a half minutes to boot up to the point of " I can make a call " .
What this means is if I go into some bathroom at a bar , and some drunk bastard puts moves on me , before I could power up and call 911 , him and all his friends could run a train on my ass and be gone .
Now what about this " push a button and it 's instantly on " crap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAHAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.
I guess this guy has never really used a Smartphone that was off off?
I had a Samsung SCH-i730 and SCH-i760 (Both WinMobile) which took a bit to boot and become useful, and now a Blacberry Storm.
If the Storm is fully powered down, and I turn it on, it takes about 3 and a half minutes to boot up to the point of "I can make a call".
What this means is if I go into some bathroom at a bar, and some drunk bastard puts moves on me, before I could power up and call 911, him and all his friends could run a train on my ass and be gone.
Now what about this "push a button and it's instantly on" crap?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188296</id>
	<title>too long</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1258801140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"... Seven seconds is too long,"</p></div><p>what about the minutes people had to wait to start up their computers?</p><p>sure, it's nice to not have to wait so long now, but what is so crucial that someone has to be logged on in 7 seconds? is Facebook or fantasy sports that important? go twitter yourself or something while you sit through the tortuous boot time. or maybe just go grab a drink.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... Seven seconds is too long , " what about the minutes people had to wait to start up their computers ? sure , it 's nice to not have to wait so long now , but what is so crucial that someone has to be logged on in 7 seconds ?
is Facebook or fantasy sports that important ?
go twitter yourself or something while you sit through the tortuous boot time .
or maybe just go grab a drink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... Seven seconds is too long,"what about the minutes people had to wait to start up their computers?sure, it's nice to not have to wait so long now, but what is so crucial that someone has to be logged on in 7 seconds?
is Facebook or fantasy sports that important?
go twitter yourself or something while you sit through the tortuous boot time.
or maybe just go grab a drink.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192934</id>
	<title>but ChromeOS and Droid are very different</title>
	<author>JohnnySoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1258901340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I missed something but I thought ChromeOS was for desktop computers with full sized keyboards and all, and Droid was for little cell phones with little tiny keyboards.</p><p>Would anyone like typing in a one page memo on their cell phone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I missed something but I thought ChromeOS was for desktop computers with full sized keyboards and all , and Droid was for little cell phones with little tiny keyboards.Would anyone like typing in a one page memo on their cell phone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I missed something but I thought ChromeOS was for desktop computers with full sized keyboards and all, and Droid was for little cell phones with little tiny keyboards.Would anyone like typing in a one page memo on their cell phone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189246</id>
	<title>Re:"instant on"</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1258808160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does amaze me how many people will waste twenty minutes complaining about a problem that is slowing them down by a few seconds.  This happens at my company all the time.  <br>
<br>
Even better is when it really is a system issue so the support lines get jammed with hundreds of people calling to complain about it, even though we put messages on our queue indicating that we already know.  Then they waste further time complaining about how long they had to wait on hold to complain about the problem we already said we're addressing.  <br>
<br>
When I was taking calls, I always wanted to reply "Well, if people like you weren't calling to whine about minor inconveniences about which we're already aware, maybe queue times would be shorter, but you are, so they're not."<br>
<br>
Back in the day, I was also frequently the only person who could fix such problems, and the customers often knew this, but that wouldn't stop them from constantly calling to "get a status update".  Gee sir, I'm not sure how long this will take me to fix, because oddly enough, I haven't had a chance to look at it because people like you want "updates" instead of letting me fix the problem.  <br>
<br>
Okay, end of my little offtopic rant.  It had to be said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does amaze me how many people will waste twenty minutes complaining about a problem that is slowing them down by a few seconds .
This happens at my company all the time .
Even better is when it really is a system issue so the support lines get jammed with hundreds of people calling to complain about it , even though we put messages on our queue indicating that we already know .
Then they waste further time complaining about how long they had to wait on hold to complain about the problem we already said we 're addressing .
When I was taking calls , I always wanted to reply " Well , if people like you were n't calling to whine about minor inconveniences about which we 're already aware , maybe queue times would be shorter , but you are , so they 're not .
" Back in the day , I was also frequently the only person who could fix such problems , and the customers often knew this , but that would n't stop them from constantly calling to " get a status update " .
Gee sir , I 'm not sure how long this will take me to fix , because oddly enough , I have n't had a chance to look at it because people like you want " updates " instead of letting me fix the problem .
Okay , end of my little offtopic rant .
It had to be said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does amaze me how many people will waste twenty minutes complaining about a problem that is slowing them down by a few seconds.
This happens at my company all the time.
Even better is when it really is a system issue so the support lines get jammed with hundreds of people calling to complain about it, even though we put messages on our queue indicating that we already know.
Then they waste further time complaining about how long they had to wait on hold to complain about the problem we already said we're addressing.
When I was taking calls, I always wanted to reply "Well, if people like you weren't calling to whine about minor inconveniences about which we're already aware, maybe queue times would be shorter, but you are, so they're not.
"

Back in the day, I was also frequently the only person who could fix such problems, and the customers often knew this, but that wouldn't stop them from constantly calling to "get a status update".
Gee sir, I'm not sure how long this will take me to fix, because oddly enough, I haven't had a chance to look at it because people like you want "updates" instead of letting me fix the problem.
Okay, end of my little offtopic rant.
It had to be said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192242</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>TikiTDO</author>
	<datestamp>1258889220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people underestimate where technology will be in 10 years. Why use cheap ARM hardware, when you could have super computers with you for a relatively low price. With a good enough wireless technology, web apps could work, and the computer could still cache some data locally to make the programs you install run quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people underestimate where technology will be in 10 years .
Why use cheap ARM hardware , when you could have super computers with you for a relatively low price .
With a good enough wireless technology , web apps could work , and the computer could still cache some data locally to make the programs you install run quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people underestimate where technology will be in 10 years.
Why use cheap ARM hardware, when you could have super computers with you for a relatively low price.
With a good enough wireless technology, web apps could work, and the computer could still cache some data locally to make the programs you install run quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188908</id>
	<title>Re:At least SplashTop is reasonable</title>
	<author>husker\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1258805220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But almost everyone is using a strawman (as Microsoft is). The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing. It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc. Everyone is writing the "Google vs. Microsoft" article they want to write, instead of the tougher article about how Google is basically working to define a new class of computer (something of a netbook that's not running a general OS).</p></div></blockquote><p>
My mother-in-law is nearing 80 years old, and I have her doing pretty much everything on the web using Google services.  It's a pain to maintain her PC from 2000 miles away.  Once they perfect this (calling it a Webbook would be more apropos) I'd gladly replace the Windows laptop she has with one of these things, and reduce my maintenance headaches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But almost everyone is using a strawman ( as Microsoft is ) .
The point is not to replace Windows , it 's an OS for web surfing .
It 's not for playing World of Warcraft , doing heavy photo editing , video editing , etc .
Everyone is writing the " Google vs. Microsoft " article they want to write , instead of the tougher article about how Google is basically working to define a new class of computer ( something of a netbook that 's not running a general OS ) .
My mother-in-law is nearing 80 years old , and I have her doing pretty much everything on the web using Google services .
It 's a pain to maintain her PC from 2000 miles away .
Once they perfect this ( calling it a Webbook would be more apropos ) I 'd gladly replace the Windows laptop she has with one of these things , and reduce my maintenance headaches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But almost everyone is using a strawman (as Microsoft is).
The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing.
It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc.
Everyone is writing the "Google vs. Microsoft" article they want to write, instead of the tougher article about how Google is basically working to define a new class of computer (something of a netbook that's not running a general OS).
My mother-in-law is nearing 80 years old, and I have her doing pretty much everything on the web using Google services.
It's a pain to maintain her PC from 2000 miles away.
Once they perfect this (calling it a Webbook would be more apropos) I'd gladly replace the Windows laptop she has with one of these things, and reduce my maintenance headaches.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188286</id>
	<title>It's not a problem</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1258801080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said. </i>

</p><p>Thanks for the advice but it's not a problem - I never buy any software from Google until the third release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'From what was shared , it appears to be in the early stages of development, ' a Microsoft spokeswoman said .
Thanks for the advice but it 's not a problem - I never buy any software from Google until the third release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said.
Thanks for the advice but it's not a problem - I never buy any software from Google until the third release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188482</id>
	<title>I think MS is right on the "just works" point</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1258802400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the first time I've ever said this, but with the release of Windows 7, Windows "just works".  XP had plenty of bugs, Vista drove me to Ubuntu for a few years, and now with Windows 7, I've had very few problems.  It's nearly none, but I had to run a few older games in XP compatibility mode and some proxification program didn't work because it lacked a 64 bit driver.
<br> <br>
That said, I'm thinking that Chrome OS will "just work" too, but because it's functionality will be limited and hardware support tightly controlled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the first time I 've ever said this , but with the release of Windows 7 , Windows " just works " .
XP had plenty of bugs , Vista drove me to Ubuntu for a few years , and now with Windows 7 , I 've had very few problems .
It 's nearly none , but I had to run a few older games in XP compatibility mode and some proxification program did n't work because it lacked a 64 bit driver .
That said , I 'm thinking that Chrome OS will " just work " too , but because it 's functionality will be limited and hardware support tightly controlled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the first time I've ever said this, but with the release of Windows 7, Windows "just works".
XP had plenty of bugs, Vista drove me to Ubuntu for a few years, and now with Windows 7, I've had very few problems.
It's nearly none, but I had to run a few older games in XP compatibility mode and some proxification program didn't work because it lacked a 64 bit driver.
That said, I'm thinking that Chrome OS will "just work" too, but because it's functionality will be limited and hardware support tightly controlled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30194004</id>
	<title>Little delays, big impact</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1258910220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It does amaze me how many people will waste twenty minutes complaining about a problem that is slowing them down by a few seconds.</p></div></blockquote><p>Little delays have a big impact when they occur frequently and during moments of concentration. What if your keyboard took one second to respond to each key you pressed? And then waited another second to register the next key? You probably wouldn't have much fun typing up an email and waiting three minutes for all the letters to register, just to find that you made a typo in the first sentence and need another two minutes to correct one mistake. And you'd probably lose your train of thought before reaching the second paragraph and forget to tell your coworker that one very important reminder that would have saved them an extra day of work. Would it be worth ten minutes of your time Googling around and finding how to fix your computer?</p><p>So an increase from one second to four seconds isn't just three seconds, it's four times longer! And if that delay occurs while you're in a frame of mind that you only attain for an hour a day, that's another factor of twenty-four to count. Little delays when you're working intensely are a big problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does amaze me how many people will waste twenty minutes complaining about a problem that is slowing them down by a few seconds.Little delays have a big impact when they occur frequently and during moments of concentration .
What if your keyboard took one second to respond to each key you pressed ?
And then waited another second to register the next key ?
You probably would n't have much fun typing up an email and waiting three minutes for all the letters to register , just to find that you made a typo in the first sentence and need another two minutes to correct one mistake .
And you 'd probably lose your train of thought before reaching the second paragraph and forget to tell your coworker that one very important reminder that would have saved them an extra day of work .
Would it be worth ten minutes of your time Googling around and finding how to fix your computer ? So an increase from one second to four seconds is n't just three seconds , it 's four times longer !
And if that delay occurs while you 're in a frame of mind that you only attain for an hour a day , that 's another factor of twenty-four to count .
Little delays when you 're working intensely are a big problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does amaze me how many people will waste twenty minutes complaining about a problem that is slowing them down by a few seconds.Little delays have a big impact when they occur frequently and during moments of concentration.
What if your keyboard took one second to respond to each key you pressed?
And then waited another second to register the next key?
You probably wouldn't have much fun typing up an email and waiting three minutes for all the letters to register, just to find that you made a typo in the first sentence and need another two minutes to correct one mistake.
And you'd probably lose your train of thought before reaching the second paragraph and forget to tell your coworker that one very important reminder that would have saved them an extra day of work.
Would it be worth ten minutes of your time Googling around and finding how to fix your computer?So an increase from one second to four seconds isn't just three seconds, it's four times longer!
And if that delay occurs while you're in a frame of mind that you only attain for an hour a day, that's another factor of twenty-four to count.
Little delays when you're working intensely are a big problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190768</id>
	<title>Re:I think MS is right on the "just works" point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258822320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh god make these morons stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh god make these morons stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh god make these morons stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192936</id>
	<title>What about TV sets?</title>
	<author>nikolayo</author>
	<datestamp>1258901340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody mentions TV sets and yet they seem to be a quite natural hosting hardware for a network-centric OS. If Google manages to get to those with Chrome OS then everything else will be trifles in terms of commercial return. I would be very surprised if Google is not talking to vendors about this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody mentions TV sets and yet they seem to be a quite natural hosting hardware for a network-centric OS .
If Google manages to get to those with Chrome OS then everything else will be trifles in terms of commercial return .
I would be very surprised if Google is not talking to vendors about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody mentions TV sets and yet they seem to be a quite natural hosting hardware for a network-centric OS.
If Google manages to get to those with Chrome OS then everything else will be trifles in terms of commercial return.
I would be very surprised if Google is not talking to vendors about this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188822</id>
	<title>ChromeOS == crippleware.</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1258804740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Not really.  People will buy a crippleware smartphone for that before they'll spend money on a crippleware computer.  don't have to buy a separate keyboard, mouse or screen, portable, always-on, can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time, apps work offline, more local storage, can make phone calls, videos, etc., and just way more cool.
</p><p>
And the only people who will look at this are people too cheap to buy even a crappy $200 netbook or a smartphone.  No advertiser is going to pay for clicks from them, so forget about subsidizing these boxes with revenue from search.
</p><p>
Business won't want it because there's some data you just don't share, not to mention desktop clutter and more time wasted synching.
</p><p>
This product is at least 3 years too late (and will be 4 years too late when it finally rolls out), and aims at a market nobody can make money with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is not to replace Windows , it 's an OS for web surfing .
Not really .
People will buy a crippleware smartphone for that before they 'll spend money on a crippleware computer .
do n't have to buy a separate keyboard , mouse or screen , portable , always-on , can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time , apps work offline , more local storage , can make phone calls , videos , etc. , and just way more cool .
And the only people who will look at this are people too cheap to buy even a crappy $ 200 netbook or a smartphone .
No advertiser is going to pay for clicks from them , so forget about subsidizing these boxes with revenue from search .
Business wo n't want it because there 's some data you just do n't share , not to mention desktop clutter and more time wasted synching .
This product is at least 3 years too late ( and will be 4 years too late when it finally rolls out ) , and aims at a market nobody can make money with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing.
Not really.
People will buy a crippleware smartphone for that before they'll spend money on a crippleware computer.
don't have to buy a separate keyboard, mouse or screen, portable, always-on, can run local apps instead of downloading everything off the web every time, apps work offline, more local storage, can make phone calls, videos, etc., and just way more cool.
And the only people who will look at this are people too cheap to buy even a crappy $200 netbook or a smartphone.
No advertiser is going to pay for clicks from them, so forget about subsidizing these boxes with revenue from search.
Business won't want it because there's some data you just don't share, not to mention desktop clutter and more time wasted synching.
This product is at least 3 years too late (and will be 4 years too late when it finally rolls out), and aims at a market nobody can make money with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190586</id>
	<title>Re:ChromeOS == crippleware.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1258819800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This product is at least 3 years too late (and will be 4 years too late when it finally rolls out), and aims at a market nobody can make money with.</p></div><p>It looks great for kiosk applications. And the price is right for most of the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This product is at least 3 years too late ( and will be 4 years too late when it finally rolls out ) , and aims at a market nobody can make money with.It looks great for kiosk applications .
And the price is right for most of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This product is at least 3 years too late (and will be 4 years too late when it finally rolls out), and aims at a market nobody can make money with.It looks great for kiosk applications.
And the price is right for most of the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188758</id>
	<title>How it works.</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1258804320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks interesting =&gt; We don't give a shit.<br>
Looks bad =&gt; Oh shit, we are screwed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks interesting = &gt; We do n't give a shit .
Looks bad = &gt; Oh shit , we are screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks interesting =&gt; We don't give a shit.
Looks bad =&gt; Oh shit, we are screwed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191538</id>
	<title>And, not or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258832460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously ChromeOS cannot replace a real OS, and you can say a lot of bad things about Windows, but it is an OS and not just a glorified browser. But wouldn't it be neat to have an instant-on glorified browser until the real OS is done booting, and switch when you need to do some real computing? Cold-booting Windows can easily take several minutes, if you measure the time from hitting the power switch to real idle state (no HDD access, negligible CPU activity). Mr Hobbs is right in that ten seconds is far from instant-on, but I'm sure those ten seconds can be reduced further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously ChromeOS can not replace a real OS , and you can say a lot of bad things about Windows , but it is an OS and not just a glorified browser .
But would n't it be neat to have an instant-on glorified browser until the real OS is done booting , and switch when you need to do some real computing ?
Cold-booting Windows can easily take several minutes , if you measure the time from hitting the power switch to real idle state ( no HDD access , negligible CPU activity ) .
Mr Hobbs is right in that ten seconds is far from instant-on , but I 'm sure those ten seconds can be reduced further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously ChromeOS cannot replace a real OS, and you can say a lot of bad things about Windows, but it is an OS and not just a glorified browser.
But wouldn't it be neat to have an instant-on glorified browser until the real OS is done booting, and switch when you need to do some real computing?
Cold-booting Windows can easily take several minutes, if you measure the time from hitting the power switch to real idle state (no HDD access, negligible CPU activity).
Mr Hobbs is right in that ten seconds is far from instant-on, but I'm sure those ten seconds can be reduced further.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189138</id>
	<title>It's definitely a fast boot,</title>
	<author>TxRv</author>
	<datestamp>1258806780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>even in Virtualbox. The rest is rather disappointing though. It's just a full screen web-browser and nothing else. If you want more than that you'd be better off with Ubuntu Netbook Remix or another mini Linux distro. I would have much preferred a stable Linux build of the Google Chrome browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>even in Virtualbox .
The rest is rather disappointing though .
It 's just a full screen web-browser and nothing else .
If you want more than that you 'd be better off with Ubuntu Netbook Remix or another mini Linux distro .
I would have much preferred a stable Linux build of the Google Chrome browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even in Virtualbox.
The rest is rather disappointing though.
It's just a full screen web-browser and nothing else.
If you want more than that you'd be better off with Ubuntu Netbook Remix or another mini Linux distro.
I would have much preferred a stable Linux build of the Google Chrome browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189852</id>
	<title>Re:Dang!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258813080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Atom based netbooks are already too slow for anything *but* web surfing</i></p><p>Ever actually use one?</p><p>My Windows 7 netbook has no problem playing full-screen MP4 video, that's a bit more hardcore than web surfing. Of course, you can find websites now that do full-screen HD video, so I guess maybe that falls under the definition of "web surfing."</p><p>Frankly, the Atom CPU is about 5 times faster than my first Windows XP PC. And I did a hell of a lot with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Atom based netbooks are already too slow for anything * but * web surfingEver actually use one ? My Windows 7 netbook has no problem playing full-screen MP4 video , that 's a bit more hardcore than web surfing .
Of course , you can find websites now that do full-screen HD video , so I guess maybe that falls under the definition of " web surfing .
" Frankly , the Atom CPU is about 5 times faster than my first Windows XP PC .
And I did a hell of a lot with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Atom based netbooks are already too slow for anything *but* web surfingEver actually use one?My Windows 7 netbook has no problem playing full-screen MP4 video, that's a bit more hardcore than web surfing.
Of course, you can find websites now that do full-screen HD video, so I guess maybe that falls under the definition of "web surfing.
"Frankly, the Atom CPU is about 5 times faster than my first Windows XP PC.
And I did a hell of a lot with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189052</id>
	<title>Re:Just works?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258806180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naturally.  PC is shorthand for "IBM PC-compatible computer" which by design was an x86.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naturally .
PC is shorthand for " IBM PC-compatible computer " which by design was an x86 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naturally.
PC is shorthand for "IBM PC-compatible computer" which by design was an x86.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192422</id>
	<title>Re:"instant on"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258893300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You know, my first thought when I read "seven seconds is too long" was "you've got to be kidding" </i></p><p>Well, I would say that they are NOT kidding. To be honest, I am getting quite weary of buying upgraded processors and more RAM so I can finally, at last, get instant response... and what happens? Some jackass comes along and says, "programmer time is more important than CPU time. Let's use layers and layers of crap to reduce programmer time. Nobody will ever notice since CPUs will always become faster to hide the slowness."</p><p>Well, you know what? Screw you. I am wasting some mod points to respond to this, but yeah. Your mail server should have responded within a second. In a LAN, if a packet takes more than 10 milliseconds to get there, your network is poor. Your CPU should have been able to handle the network packets, decoded the IMAP request, etc within 40 milliseconds. Seriously, a millisecond is a HUGE amount of time for a modern CPU. So, we have 60 milliseconds total in which your mail server should have responded. Why didn't it?</p><p>strike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , my first thought when I read " seven seconds is too long " was " you 've got to be kidding " Well , I would say that they are NOT kidding .
To be honest , I am getting quite weary of buying upgraded processors and more RAM so I can finally , at last , get instant response... and what happens ?
Some jackass comes along and says , " programmer time is more important than CPU time .
Let 's use layers and layers of crap to reduce programmer time .
Nobody will ever notice since CPUs will always become faster to hide the slowness .
" Well , you know what ?
Screw you .
I am wasting some mod points to respond to this , but yeah .
Your mail server should have responded within a second .
In a LAN , if a packet takes more than 10 milliseconds to get there , your network is poor .
Your CPU should have been able to handle the network packets , decoded the IMAP request , etc within 40 milliseconds .
Seriously , a millisecond is a HUGE amount of time for a modern CPU .
So , we have 60 milliseconds total in which your mail server should have responded .
Why did n't it ? strike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, my first thought when I read "seven seconds is too long" was "you've got to be kidding" Well, I would say that they are NOT kidding.
To be honest, I am getting quite weary of buying upgraded processors and more RAM so I can finally, at last, get instant response... and what happens?
Some jackass comes along and says, "programmer time is more important than CPU time.
Let's use layers and layers of crap to reduce programmer time.
Nobody will ever notice since CPUs will always become faster to hide the slowness.
"Well, you know what?
Screw you.
I am wasting some mod points to respond to this, but yeah.
Your mail server should have responded within a second.
In a LAN, if a packet takes more than 10 milliseconds to get there, your network is poor.
Your CPU should have been able to handle the network packets, decoded the IMAP request, etc within 40 milliseconds.
Seriously, a millisecond is a HUGE amount of time for a modern CPU.
So, we have 60 milliseconds total in which your mail server should have responded.
Why didn't it?strike</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189686</id>
	<title>Re:Car Analogy for MS Spokesperson</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1258811760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google is solving a problem that doesn't exist. I have yet to hear anyone ask to do all their computing through a web browser.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a silly assertion to make. Of course, no one does all their computing through a web browser, but almost everyone I know uses several devices for their computing needs (whereas those devices are calculators, smart-phones, TV/netflix appliances, gaming consoles, PCs, netbooks for the road, an extra PC for when relatives show up, etc.)</p><p>A netbook with Chrome OS might be the perfect device to have in the kitchen for instance, or it might be the perfect device to give a relative. Only time will tell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is solving a problem that does n't exist .
I have yet to hear anyone ask to do all their computing through a web browser.That 's a silly assertion to make .
Of course , no one does all their computing through a web browser , but almost everyone I know uses several devices for their computing needs ( whereas those devices are calculators , smart-phones , TV/netflix appliances , gaming consoles , PCs , netbooks for the road , an extra PC for when relatives show up , etc .
) A netbook with Chrome OS might be the perfect device to have in the kitchen for instance , or it might be the perfect device to give a relative .
Only time will tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is solving a problem that doesn't exist.
I have yet to hear anyone ask to do all their computing through a web browser.That's a silly assertion to make.
Of course, no one does all their computing through a web browser, but almost everyone I know uses several devices for their computing needs (whereas those devices are calculators, smart-phones, TV/netflix appliances, gaming consoles, PCs, netbooks for the road, an extra PC for when relatives show up, etc.
)A netbook with Chrome OS might be the perfect device to have in the kitchen for instance, or it might be the perfect device to give a relative.
Only time will tell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188448</id>
	<title>It's not what they thought it was</title>
	<author>Linegod</author>
	<datestamp>1258802160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tech blogs have been extrapolating from minor leaks ands rumours, generating the 'perfect' OS in their minds.   When Google released what they think is going fill a niche - a smartphone on steroids - the tech blogs where crushed.   Microsoft steps in to assure them that they will continue to have a hype cycle to satisfy their lust for ad revenue, and all is well in the Techblogosphere.</p><p>In three or four years, when you can only get Chrome OS on a netbook, the geeks will turn against Google as well.   It will be the same fight that was fought for the desktop, but this time it will be Ubuntu that that people will say doesn't let you mount a hard drive out of the box, since it is only SSD, which will be too difficult for the 'common user', and the geek culture will implode on itself as it struggles with it's fanatical devotion to a dumbed down Linux and their realization that Google and Canonical are run by the same type of people that cause them constant strife in their underpaid IT jobs.</p><p>Either that, or like when Firefly was canceled, they will just go outside for a week, and wait until they are drawn back in....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tech blogs have been extrapolating from minor leaks ands rumours , generating the 'perfect ' OS in their minds .
When Google released what they think is going fill a niche - a smartphone on steroids - the tech blogs where crushed .
Microsoft steps in to assure them that they will continue to have a hype cycle to satisfy their lust for ad revenue , and all is well in the Techblogosphere.In three or four years , when you can only get Chrome OS on a netbook , the geeks will turn against Google as well .
It will be the same fight that was fought for the desktop , but this time it will be Ubuntu that that people will say does n't let you mount a hard drive out of the box , since it is only SSD , which will be too difficult for the 'common user ' , and the geek culture will implode on itself as it struggles with it 's fanatical devotion to a dumbed down Linux and their realization that Google and Canonical are run by the same type of people that cause them constant strife in their underpaid IT jobs.Either that , or like when Firefly was canceled , they will just go outside for a week , and wait until they are drawn back in... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tech blogs have been extrapolating from minor leaks ands rumours, generating the 'perfect' OS in their minds.
When Google released what they think is going fill a niche - a smartphone on steroids - the tech blogs where crushed.
Microsoft steps in to assure them that they will continue to have a hype cycle to satisfy their lust for ad revenue, and all is well in the Techblogosphere.In three or four years, when you can only get Chrome OS on a netbook, the geeks will turn against Google as well.
It will be the same fight that was fought for the desktop, but this time it will be Ubuntu that that people will say doesn't let you mount a hard drive out of the box, since it is only SSD, which will be too difficult for the 'common user', and the geek culture will implode on itself as it struggles with it's fanatical devotion to a dumbed down Linux and their realization that Google and Canonical are run by the same type of people that cause them constant strife in their underpaid IT jobs.Either that, or like when Firefly was canceled, they will just go outside for a week, and wait until they are drawn back in....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864</id>
	<title>Re:Car Analogy for MS Spokesperson</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1258804980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you hit the nail on the head.  Google is solving a problem that doesn't exist.  I have yet to hear anyone ask to do all their computing through a web browser.</p><p>I love Chrome.  It's my browser of choice most of the time.  I'm a Google account/services user.  I do think they provide an excellent web experience.  I don't see them providing the same experience for my desktop as they do for the web.  I guess we'll see how this unfolds though.  Something tells me there is more to this than we're seeing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you hit the nail on the head .
Google is solving a problem that does n't exist .
I have yet to hear anyone ask to do all their computing through a web browser.I love Chrome .
It 's my browser of choice most of the time .
I 'm a Google account/services user .
I do think they provide an excellent web experience .
I do n't see them providing the same experience for my desktop as they do for the web .
I guess we 'll see how this unfolds though .
Something tells me there is more to this than we 're seeing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you hit the nail on the head.
Google is solving a problem that doesn't exist.
I have yet to hear anyone ask to do all their computing through a web browser.I love Chrome.
It's my browser of choice most of the time.
I'm a Google account/services user.
I do think they provide an excellent web experience.
I don't see them providing the same experience for my desktop as they do for the web.
I guess we'll see how this unfolds though.
Something tells me there is more to this than we're seeing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189730</id>
	<title>Re:It's definitely a fast boot,</title>
	<author>quickOnTheUptake</author>
	<datestamp>1258812180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would have much preferred a stable Linux build of the Google Chrome browser.</p></div><p>What sort of stability issues have you had with it? I've been using it for months as my only browser on Debian and have never had it crash or become sluggish. <br>Flash OTOH . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have much preferred a stable Linux build of the Google Chrome browser.What sort of stability issues have you had with it ?
I 've been using it for months as my only browser on Debian and have never had it crash or become sluggish .
Flash OTOH .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have much preferred a stable Linux build of the Google Chrome browser.What sort of stability issues have you had with it?
I've been using it for months as my only browser on Debian and have never had it crash or become sluggish.
Flash OTOH .
. .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189138</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30195686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30194342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30199150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30199928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30196070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30219972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30194004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_2115249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30194282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30194342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30196070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189974
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30199150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30199928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30195686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30193980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30219972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30194004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30192986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30191226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30190654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30188448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_2115249.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_2115249.30189692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
