<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_08_151240</id>
	<title>Mozilla Puts Tiger Out To Pasture</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1265641860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Mozilla is ready to <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/355360/mozilla-to-turn-its-back-on-tiger">exorcise support for Mac OS X 10.4 from Firefox's development code</a>, closing the door on Apple's aging OS. The foundation stopped supporting 10.4, codenamed Tiger, in September 2009, but, according to Josh Aas, a Mozilla platform engineer, 'we left much of the code required to support that platform in the tree in case we wanted to reverse that decision." We had come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific code,' he notes on the <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse\_thread/thread/7d3a647586bab993#">Mozilla developer planning forum</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Mozilla is ready to exorcise support for Mac OS X 10.4 from Firefox 's development code , closing the door on Apple 's aging OS .
The foundation stopped supporting 10.4 , codenamed Tiger , in September 2009 , but , according to Josh Aas , a Mozilla platform engineer , 'we left much of the code required to support that platform in the tree in case we wanted to reverse that decision .
" We had come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either restore 10.4 support or remove this ( large ) amount of 10.4 specific code, ' he notes on the Mozilla developer planning forum .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Mozilla is ready to exorcise support for Mac OS X 10.4 from Firefox's development code, closing the door on Apple's aging OS.
The foundation stopped supporting 10.4, codenamed Tiger, in September 2009, but, according to Josh Aas, a Mozilla platform engineer, 'we left much of the code required to support that platform in the tree in case we wanted to reverse that decision.
" We had come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific code,' he notes on the Mozilla developer planning forum.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060900</id>
	<title>Affecting a small audience</title>
	<author>diamondsw</author>
	<datestamp>1265647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd expect that very few people still running Tiger (two major releases out of date) are going to be updating their Firefox install to the latest and greatest. And no, the ten people in the Slashdot audience who pipe up and say they're running Tiger for some esoteric reason are not representative of the whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd expect that very few people still running Tiger ( two major releases out of date ) are going to be updating their Firefox install to the latest and greatest .
And no , the ten people in the Slashdot audience who pipe up and say they 're running Tiger for some esoteric reason are not representative of the whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd expect that very few people still running Tiger (two major releases out of date) are going to be updating their Firefox install to the latest and greatest.
And no, the ten people in the Slashdot audience who pipe up and say they're running Tiger for some esoteric reason are not representative of the whole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061678</id>
	<title>Wrong Question for the Mac Faithful</title>
	<author>buckhead\_buddy</author>
	<datestamp>1265651040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a long time Mac user. Firefox developers are asking the wrong question of Mac users by focusing this discussion on continued support; of course, everyone wants their platform supported as long as possible.</p><p>But if you ask about whether Firefox should feel more like a "native" Mac app, you'd get a lot of Mac faithful saying "ditch Tiger if that's standing in the way". For example, ATSUI is the legacy text engine from the days of OpenDoc and System 7.5; apps that still use it under Mac OS X draw fire from Mac users because it's not integrated as well as CoreText or the Cocoa Text Engine. They don't make this text engine distinction directly, but it's clear they don't consider ATSUI to be Mac-like anymore with the "bugs" they file and complaints they have about lack of integration e.g. "Why doesn't the command-control-d shortcut to look up something in the dictionary work?"</p><p>Based on the goals of the Firefox roadmap, 4.0 looks like a "must-reluctantly-kill-Tiger" release just based on its lofty memory isolation goals; that's a feature you do not want to compromise the quality of.</p><p>Keep the bug fixes and security updates of the 3.x Firefox platform able to work with Tiger. This helps Mac users. This helps support people. This helps propagate a good standards compliant browser to as many people with legacy hardware as possible. But a major release number like 4.0 is a good end-user aware point for removing significant backwards compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a long time Mac user .
Firefox developers are asking the wrong question of Mac users by focusing this discussion on continued support ; of course , everyone wants their platform supported as long as possible.But if you ask about whether Firefox should feel more like a " native " Mac app , you 'd get a lot of Mac faithful saying " ditch Tiger if that 's standing in the way " .
For example , ATSUI is the legacy text engine from the days of OpenDoc and System 7.5 ; apps that still use it under Mac OS X draw fire from Mac users because it 's not integrated as well as CoreText or the Cocoa Text Engine .
They do n't make this text engine distinction directly , but it 's clear they do n't consider ATSUI to be Mac-like anymore with the " bugs " they file and complaints they have about lack of integration e.g .
" Why does n't the command-control-d shortcut to look up something in the dictionary work ?
" Based on the goals of the Firefox roadmap , 4.0 looks like a " must-reluctantly-kill-Tiger " release just based on its lofty memory isolation goals ; that 's a feature you do not want to compromise the quality of.Keep the bug fixes and security updates of the 3.x Firefox platform able to work with Tiger .
This helps Mac users .
This helps support people .
This helps propagate a good standards compliant browser to as many people with legacy hardware as possible .
But a major release number like 4.0 is a good end-user aware point for removing significant backwards compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a long time Mac user.
Firefox developers are asking the wrong question of Mac users by focusing this discussion on continued support; of course, everyone wants their platform supported as long as possible.But if you ask about whether Firefox should feel more like a "native" Mac app, you'd get a lot of Mac faithful saying "ditch Tiger if that's standing in the way".
For example, ATSUI is the legacy text engine from the days of OpenDoc and System 7.5; apps that still use it under Mac OS X draw fire from Mac users because it's not integrated as well as CoreText or the Cocoa Text Engine.
They don't make this text engine distinction directly, but it's clear they don't consider ATSUI to be Mac-like anymore with the "bugs" they file and complaints they have about lack of integration e.g.
"Why doesn't the command-control-d shortcut to look up something in the dictionary work?
"Based on the goals of the Firefox roadmap, 4.0 looks like a "must-reluctantly-kill-Tiger" release just based on its lofty memory isolation goals; that's a feature you do not want to compromise the quality of.Keep the bug fixes and security updates of the 3.x Firefox platform able to work with Tiger.
This helps Mac users.
This helps support people.
This helps propagate a good standards compliant browser to as many people with legacy hardware as possible.
But a major release number like 4.0 is a good end-user aware point for removing significant backwards compatibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060982</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>B3ryllium</author>
	<datestamp>1265647860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?</p></div><p>A security patch isn't as simple as deciding "Oh, we don't want to have that vulnerability any more" and commenting out a setting. If it was that easy, there wouldn't be very many vulnerabilities at all.</p><p>On the one hand, any time you find a new vulnerability (or a new class of vulnerabilities), you have to audit all the nooks and crannies of the code base in order to identify either the problem itself, or the problem areas that are affected.</p><p>On the other hand, any time you change a line of code, you have to recompile. That means, to release the patch, you'll have to recompile for *every target OS*, and you'll have to *test* on every one of those OSes.</p><p>Surely when considering both of those complicating factors, you can see what Mozilla's motivations might be for retiring old support branches with a relatively limited user base?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers ? A security patch is n't as simple as deciding " Oh , we do n't want to have that vulnerability any more " and commenting out a setting .
If it was that easy , there would n't be very many vulnerabilities at all.On the one hand , any time you find a new vulnerability ( or a new class of vulnerabilities ) , you have to audit all the nooks and crannies of the code base in order to identify either the problem itself , or the problem areas that are affected.On the other hand , any time you change a line of code , you have to recompile .
That means , to release the patch , you 'll have to recompile for * every target OS * , and you 'll have to * test * on every one of those OSes.Surely when considering both of those complicating factors , you can see what Mozilla 's motivations might be for retiring old support branches with a relatively limited user base ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?A security patch isn't as simple as deciding "Oh, we don't want to have that vulnerability any more" and commenting out a setting.
If it was that easy, there wouldn't be very many vulnerabilities at all.On the one hand, any time you find a new vulnerability (or a new class of vulnerabilities), you have to audit all the nooks and crannies of the code base in order to identify either the problem itself, or the problem areas that are affected.On the other hand, any time you change a line of code, you have to recompile.
That means, to release the patch, you'll have to recompile for *every target OS*, and you'll have to *test* on every one of those OSes.Surely when considering both of those complicating factors, you can see what Mozilla's motivations might be for retiring old support branches with a relatively limited user base?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062808</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265656800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Firefox is still supported on Windows 2000,</p><p>That's because stuff that worked in Windows 2000 mostly still works in Vista or Win7.</p><p>The story is a bit less happy with 10.4 as compared to 10.6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Firefox is still supported on Windows 2000,That 's because stuff that worked in Windows 2000 mostly still works in Vista or Win7.The story is a bit less happy with 10.4 as compared to 10.6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Firefox is still supported on Windows 2000,That's because stuff that worked in Windows 2000 mostly still works in Vista or Win7.The story is a bit less happy with 10.4 as compared to 10.6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061354</id>
	<title>Updating on Mac OS X</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265649720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And even if the grandson does the deed, she won't know how to use it or update it (Firefox on OSX updates automatically).</p></div><p>Ubuntu's Update Manager updates just as automatically. In fact, I find updating in Ubuntu more convenient. First, Ubuntu is like Windows in that you can update in the background, unlike Mac OS X where updating forces all applications to close. That wouldn't be a problem except that Mac OS X (at least 10.6) forces a restart, <em>not</em> a shutdown or restart-to-hibernate, after an update. That's a pain if updating is the last thing you do in a day before leaving the computer; you have to sit around and wait for it to finish instead of setting it and forgetting it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And even if the grandson does the deed , she wo n't know how to use it or update it ( Firefox on OSX updates automatically ) .Ubuntu 's Update Manager updates just as automatically .
In fact , I find updating in Ubuntu more convenient .
First , Ubuntu is like Windows in that you can update in the background , unlike Mac OS X where updating forces all applications to close .
That would n't be a problem except that Mac OS X ( at least 10.6 ) forces a restart , not a shutdown or restart-to-hibernate , after an update .
That 's a pain if updating is the last thing you do in a day before leaving the computer ; you have to sit around and wait for it to finish instead of setting it and forgetting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even if the grandson does the deed, she won't know how to use it or update it (Firefox on OSX updates automatically).Ubuntu's Update Manager updates just as automatically.
In fact, I find updating in Ubuntu more convenient.
First, Ubuntu is like Windows in that you can update in the background, unlike Mac OS X where updating forces all applications to close.
That wouldn't be a problem except that Mac OS X (at least 10.6) forces a restart, not a shutdown or restart-to-hibernate, after an update.
That's a pain if updating is the last thing you do in a day before leaving the computer; you have to sit around and wait for it to finish instead of setting it and forgetting it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061836</id>
	<title>Re:Tiger is running on 1/3 of macs</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1265651700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to mozilla's stats, OS X users who have bothered to upgrade their firefox to 3.6 are only composed of 12\% 10.4 users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to mozilla 's stats , OS X users who have bothered to upgrade their firefox to 3.6 are only composed of 12 \ % 10.4 users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to mozilla's stats, OS X users who have bothered to upgrade their firefox to 3.6 are only composed of 12\% 10.4 users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062930</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265657280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The time period in question here is not "now." Firefox 3.6 will still be fully supported on 10.4 until about 2011, approximately 6 months after the next major version of Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The time period in question here is not " now .
" Firefox 3.6 will still be fully supported on 10.4 until about 2011 , approximately 6 months after the next major version of Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The time period in question here is not "now.
" Firefox 3.6 will still be fully supported on 10.4 until about 2011, approximately 6 months after the next major version of Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061168</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are still releasing security updates for 3.0. I would imagine that translates into at least another year, probably more, of security updates for 3.5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are still releasing security updates for 3.0 .
I would imagine that translates into at least another year , probably more , of security updates for 3.5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are still releasing security updates for 3.0.
I would imagine that translates into at least another year, probably more, of security updates for 3.5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061130</id>
	<title>Re:Odd...</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1265648580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it is funny that the company with the most intimate knowledge of the operating system (because they wrote it) can keep writing updates, isn't it? Strange how that works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it is funny that the company with the most intimate knowledge of the operating system ( because they wrote it ) can keep writing updates , is n't it ?
Strange how that works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it is funny that the company with the most intimate knowledge of the operating system (because they wrote it) can keep writing updates, isn't it?
Strange how that works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061568</id>
	<title>Premature?  Depends ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1265650620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although Firefox does still appear to have Windows 2000 support, it hasn't supported Windows ME since, I believe, version 2.0.  That just recently caused me problems, when I was trying to recycle an old Pentium 2 class machine to give to an unemployed woman who just needed a *really* cheap computer to do an Internet job search with.  I discovered that with Windows ME (or by extension, Windows '98), there are really no "up to date" browser choices (except possibly Opera) they can use anymore.  Internet Explorer 6 is the last version Microsoft offers for those OS's, and everyone's trying to kill that off as we speak.</p><p>Since Windows ME and 2000 were released in the same time-frame, I'd say Firefox's continued Win2K support has more to do with it being trivial to do than any conscious sense of a need to support an OS for "x number of years".  Windows XP, after all, was pretty much based on the Windows 2000 foundation.</p><p>As far as Macs go, I'd tend to side with your view that it's "too soon to kill off Tiger support"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... simply because 10.6 "Snow Leopard" doesn't really count in my book as a full-blown OS X "new version".  I don't say that to knock 10.6 in any way, shape or form.  (I run it on my Mac at home and love it.)  I'm just saying, it's the first time Apple has sold 2 versions of OS X side-by-side on store shelves -- because Leopard isn't really superseded by Snow Leopard for PowerPC Mac owners.  Snow Leopard is, essentially a "Leopard +" release to give Intel Mac owners the maximum benefit out of their processor architecture.  (Why waste hard disk space with a bunch of PPC code on an Intel Mac that will never utilize it?  And why not provide tools in 10.6 so developers of new apps can optimize them for the multi-core Intel processors?)  The fact you could buy Snow Leopard for only $29.99 reinforces this concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although Firefox does still appear to have Windows 2000 support , it has n't supported Windows ME since , I believe , version 2.0 .
That just recently caused me problems , when I was trying to recycle an old Pentium 2 class machine to give to an unemployed woman who just needed a * really * cheap computer to do an Internet job search with .
I discovered that with Windows ME ( or by extension , Windows '98 ) , there are really no " up to date " browser choices ( except possibly Opera ) they can use anymore .
Internet Explorer 6 is the last version Microsoft offers for those OS 's , and everyone 's trying to kill that off as we speak.Since Windows ME and 2000 were released in the same time-frame , I 'd say Firefox 's continued Win2K support has more to do with it being trivial to do than any conscious sense of a need to support an OS for " x number of years " .
Windows XP , after all , was pretty much based on the Windows 2000 foundation.As far as Macs go , I 'd tend to side with your view that it 's " too soon to kill off Tiger support " ... simply because 10.6 " Snow Leopard " does n't really count in my book as a full-blown OS X " new version " .
I do n't say that to knock 10.6 in any way , shape or form .
( I run it on my Mac at home and love it .
) I 'm just saying , it 's the first time Apple has sold 2 versions of OS X side-by-side on store shelves -- because Leopard is n't really superseded by Snow Leopard for PowerPC Mac owners .
Snow Leopard is , essentially a " Leopard + " release to give Intel Mac owners the maximum benefit out of their processor architecture .
( Why waste hard disk space with a bunch of PPC code on an Intel Mac that will never utilize it ?
And why not provide tools in 10.6 so developers of new apps can optimize them for the multi-core Intel processors ?
) The fact you could buy Snow Leopard for only $ 29.99 reinforces this concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although Firefox does still appear to have Windows 2000 support, it hasn't supported Windows ME since, I believe, version 2.0.
That just recently caused me problems, when I was trying to recycle an old Pentium 2 class machine to give to an unemployed woman who just needed a *really* cheap computer to do an Internet job search with.
I discovered that with Windows ME (or by extension, Windows '98), there are really no "up to date" browser choices (except possibly Opera) they can use anymore.
Internet Explorer 6 is the last version Microsoft offers for those OS's, and everyone's trying to kill that off as we speak.Since Windows ME and 2000 were released in the same time-frame, I'd say Firefox's continued Win2K support has more to do with it being trivial to do than any conscious sense of a need to support an OS for "x number of years".
Windows XP, after all, was pretty much based on the Windows 2000 foundation.As far as Macs go, I'd tend to side with your view that it's "too soon to kill off Tiger support" ... simply because 10.6 "Snow Leopard" doesn't really count in my book as a full-blown OS X "new version".
I don't say that to knock 10.6 in any way, shape or form.
(I run it on my Mac at home and love it.
)  I'm just saying, it's the first time Apple has sold 2 versions of OS X side-by-side on store shelves -- because Leopard isn't really superseded by Snow Leopard for PowerPC Mac owners.
Snow Leopard is, essentially a "Leopard +" release to give Intel Mac owners the maximum benefit out of their processor architecture.
(Why waste hard disk space with a bunch of PPC code on an Intel Mac that will never utilize it?
And why not provide tools in 10.6 so developers of new apps can optimize them for the multi-core Intel processors?
)  The fact you could buy Snow Leopard for only $29.99 reinforces this concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062278</id>
	<title>Re:Good decision.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265654160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leopard <i>will</i> install on a G4 slower than 867 MHz, it's requires burning a new install disk and was mainly done for iLamp support. It won't install on ANY G3, even if over 867 MHz. I remember reading a forum quite a while ago, some of the earliest builds of Leopard would run on a G3 but support was dropped. Too old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leopard will install on a G4 slower than 867 MHz , it 's requires burning a new install disk and was mainly done for iLamp support .
It wo n't install on ANY G3 , even if over 867 MHz .
I remember reading a forum quite a while ago , some of the earliest builds of Leopard would run on a G3 but support was dropped .
Too old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leopard will install on a G4 slower than 867 MHz, it's requires burning a new install disk and was mainly done for iLamp support.
It won't install on ANY G3, even if over 867 MHz.
I remember reading a forum quite a while ago, some of the earliest builds of Leopard would run on a G3 but support was dropped.
Too old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063378</id>
	<title>Re:How can I upgrade?</title>
	<author>wal9001</author>
	<datestamp>1265659440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the official solution in your case is the Mac Box Set, which gets you 10.6, iLife, and iWork for $130, the price of previous 10.x updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the official solution in your case is the Mac Box Set , which gets you 10.6 , iLife , and iWork for $ 130 , the price of previous 10.x updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the official solution in your case is the Mac Box Set, which gets you 10.6, iLife, and iWork for $130, the price of previous 10.x updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061924</id>
	<title>Re:For all those PPCs out there</title>
	<author>Enahs</author>
	<datestamp>1265652300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that works great for running all the Mac-specific stuff.</p><p>Honestly, if you can run Ubuntu, you can probably spring for a cheap PC too.  Some aspects of running Linux on a PPC tend to be non-trivial, especially that whole thing of HFS+ not being resizeable unless you're running on an Intel Mac with a GUID partitioning scheme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that works great for running all the Mac-specific stuff.Honestly , if you can run Ubuntu , you can probably spring for a cheap PC too .
Some aspects of running Linux on a PPC tend to be non-trivial , especially that whole thing of HFS + not being resizeable unless you 're running on an Intel Mac with a GUID partitioning scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that works great for running all the Mac-specific stuff.Honestly, if you can run Ubuntu, you can probably spring for a cheap PC too.
Some aspects of running Linux on a PPC tend to be non-trivial, especially that whole thing of HFS+ not being resizeable unless you're running on an Intel Mac with a GUID partitioning scheme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061212</id>
	<title>Re:Odd...</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1265649000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple have a bit more motivation than Mozilla... you know... OS X 10.4 being a product they sold and all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple have a bit more motivation than Mozilla... you know... OS X 10.4 being a product they sold and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple have a bit more motivation than Mozilla... you know... OS X 10.4 being a product they sold and all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834</id>
	<title>Re:Good decision.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265646840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leopard won't install on anything with a cpu slower than 867 Mhz so the following machines are forced to remain on 10.4 Tiger:</p><p>- Dual 800Mhz G4 Powermacs and slower.<br>- All G4 cubes<br>- All G3 iMacs and most of the iLamp G4 iMacs<br>- All G3 iBooks, a some G4 iBooks.<br>- Almost all Titanium Powerbooks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leopard wo n't install on anything with a cpu slower than 867 Mhz so the following machines are forced to remain on 10.4 Tiger : - Dual 800Mhz G4 Powermacs and slower.- All G4 cubes- All G3 iMacs and most of the iLamp G4 iMacs- All G3 iBooks , a some G4 iBooks.- Almost all Titanium Powerbooks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leopard won't install on anything with a cpu slower than 867 Mhz so the following machines are forced to remain on 10.4 Tiger:- Dual 800Mhz G4 Powermacs and slower.- All G4 cubes- All G3 iMacs and most of the iLamp G4 iMacs- All G3 iBooks, a some G4 iBooks.- Almost all Titanium Powerbooks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062318</id>
	<title>Re:This, basically, is why I left Mac</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265654400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I really found it very frustrating when I was a Mac user, that I had to either continually upgrade the OS, or else lose access to new versions of things like VLC and Mozilla.</p></div><p>As opposed to, say, Windows? I'd been using Quickbooks Pro on Windows 2000, but Intuit stopped supporting the payroll service for the version I was using. The newer, supported version of Quickbooks required XP, so I had to pay (a <em>lot</em> more than the cost of an OS X upgrade) to buy that, too.</p><p>I know exactly how you feel. I just don't understand why your dislike applies to only one platform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I really found it very frustrating when I was a Mac user , that I had to either continually upgrade the OS , or else lose access to new versions of things like VLC and Mozilla.As opposed to , say , Windows ?
I 'd been using Quickbooks Pro on Windows 2000 , but Intuit stopped supporting the payroll service for the version I was using .
The newer , supported version of Quickbooks required XP , so I had to pay ( a lot more than the cost of an OS X upgrade ) to buy that , too.I know exactly how you feel .
I just do n't understand why your dislike applies to only one platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I really found it very frustrating when I was a Mac user, that I had to either continually upgrade the OS, or else lose access to new versions of things like VLC and Mozilla.As opposed to, say, Windows?
I'd been using Quickbooks Pro on Windows 2000, but Intuit stopped supporting the payroll service for the version I was using.
The newer, supported version of Quickbooks required XP, so I had to pay (a lot more than the cost of an OS X upgrade) to buy that, too.I know exactly how you feel.
I just don't understand why your dislike applies to only one platform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061260</id>
	<title>Re:Early compared to Windows</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1265649180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4, released in 2005, while keeping support for Windows 2000, released in 2000. Even if Win2000 support is dropped, XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.</p></div><p>I don't think the Win2000 code is much different than the WinXP plus if you look at it from the number of current users Win2k has to be over 9000 times higher than OS X 10.4. Die hard OS X 10.4 users can always fork it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4 , released in 2005 , while keeping support for Windows 2000 , released in 2000 .
Even if Win2000 support is dropped , XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.I do n't think the Win2000 code is much different than the WinXP plus if you look at it from the number of current users Win2k has to be over 9000 times higher than OS X 10.4 .
Die hard OS X 10.4 users can always fork it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4, released in 2005, while keeping support for Windows 2000, released in 2000.
Even if Win2000 support is dropped, XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.I don't think the Win2000 code is much different than the WinXP plus if you look at it from the number of current users Win2k has to be over 9000 times higher than OS X 10.4.
Die hard OS X 10.4 users can always fork it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062230</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome To The Upgrade Treadmill</title>
	<author>zxsqkty</author>
	<datestamp>1265653920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In other words, 10.4 no longer gets security updates</p></div></blockquote><p>Untrue. The last 'general' security update for 10.4 was on <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3865" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">10 Sept 2009</a> [apple.com]. There have been subsequent security updates for Safari, iTunes, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , 10.4 no longer gets security updatesUntrue .
The last 'general ' security update for 10.4 was on 10 Sept 2009 [ apple.com ] .
There have been subsequent security updates for Safari , iTunes , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, 10.4 no longer gets security updatesUntrue.
The last 'general' security update for 10.4 was on 10 Sept 2009 [apple.com].
There have been subsequent security updates for Safari, iTunes, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060856</id>
	<title>What a sick joke.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265647020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Mozilla Foundation is just as retarded as they claim closed source houses are.</p><p>Where do these assholes get off screaming about Microsoft's upgrade treadmill and abandonment when they pull stupid and unnecessary stunts like this so there's more room to bloat up their stupidly unnecessary and broken "features" (hello Autisticbar?) that nobody actually wants?  Nevermind that every damned version renders pages differently, throwing the whole "but but but itz standurdz cumpliantz!" argument right out the fucking window.</p><p>You're in a glass house, so stop throwing stones already.  Thank God Microsoft doesn't actually listen to you idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mozilla Foundation is just as retarded as they claim closed source houses are.Where do these assholes get off screaming about Microsoft 's upgrade treadmill and abandonment when they pull stupid and unnecessary stunts like this so there 's more room to bloat up their stupidly unnecessary and broken " features " ( hello Autisticbar ?
) that nobody actually wants ?
Nevermind that every damned version renders pages differently , throwing the whole " but but but itz standurdz cumpliantz !
" argument right out the fucking window.You 're in a glass house , so stop throwing stones already .
Thank God Microsoft does n't actually listen to you idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mozilla Foundation is just as retarded as they claim closed source houses are.Where do these assholes get off screaming about Microsoft's upgrade treadmill and abandonment when they pull stupid and unnecessary stunts like this so there's more room to bloat up their stupidly unnecessary and broken "features" (hello Autisticbar?
) that nobody actually wants?
Nevermind that every damned version renders pages differently, throwing the whole "but but but itz standurdz cumpliantz!
" argument right out the fucking window.You're in a glass house, so stop throwing stones already.
Thank God Microsoft doesn't actually listen to you idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824</id>
	<title>For all those PPCs out there</title>
	<author>hellraizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265646780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they can always install ubuntu (or whatever linux distro)  on their laptops/computers and continue to receive updates for firefox or am i wrong ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>they can always install ubuntu ( or whatever linux distro ) on their laptops/computers and continue to receive updates for firefox or am i wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they can always install ubuntu (or whatever linux distro)  on their laptops/computers and continue to receive updates for firefox or am i wrong ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</id>
	<title>Premature</title>
	<author>Chris Lawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1265646000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is far too premature.  Firefox is still supported on Windows 2000, yet Tiger was still shipping on new Mac less than three years ago.  Lots of people are still running this on G3 machines that can't upgrade to Leopard.  I think this is just too soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is far too premature .
Firefox is still supported on Windows 2000 , yet Tiger was still shipping on new Mac less than three years ago .
Lots of people are still running this on G3 machines that ca n't upgrade to Leopard .
I think this is just too soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is far too premature.
Firefox is still supported on Windows 2000, yet Tiger was still shipping on new Mac less than three years ago.
Lots of people are still running this on G3 machines that can't upgrade to Leopard.
I think this is just too soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061626</id>
	<title>Re:Nooo !</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1265650920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back to ATSUI from Core Text...</p></div><p>Wait they're using Core Text and thy still can't get the native spell checker and grammar checker working? I assumed they were bypassing Core Text and that explained it. Now I don't have any idea how they could have broken text handling so badly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back to ATSUI from Core Text...Wait they 're using Core Text and thy still ca n't get the native spell checker and grammar checker working ?
I assumed they were bypassing Core Text and that explained it .
Now I do n't have any idea how they could have broken text handling so badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back to ATSUI from Core Text...Wait they're using Core Text and thy still can't get the native spell checker and grammar checker working?
I assumed they were bypassing Core Text and that explained it.
Now I don't have any idea how they could have broken text handling so badly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061240</id>
	<title>XP is dead weight</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265649120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vista (6.0) was released early november 2006, over 3 years ago, and 3 years is well enough time to let end-users move on and revision their computing. Oh wait, it's not; Windows XP (66\%) still greatly outnumbers Windows Vista and Windows 7 put together (25\%).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista ( 6.0 ) was released early november 2006 , over 3 years ago , and 3 years is well enough time to let end-users move on and revision their computing .
Oh wait , it 's not ; Windows XP ( 66 \ % ) still greatly outnumbers Windows Vista and Windows 7 put together ( 25 \ % ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista (6.0) was released early november 2006, over 3 years ago, and 3 years is well enough time to let end-users move on and revision their computing.
Oh wait, it's not; Windows XP (66\%) still greatly outnumbers Windows Vista and Windows 7 put together (25\%).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265646660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not a Mac person so I don't keep track of every update, but why is it that OSX 10.4, a version which only came out in 2005 according to Wikipedia, has so much code that prevents Mozilla from trivially continuing to maintain compatibility in Firefox?</p></div><p>According to the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back<br>to ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, and<br>doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree<br>since we dropped support for 10.4. Other areas where 10.4 support<br>consumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/or<br>limits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of-<br>process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation.<br>Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X<br>10.4.</p> </div><p>Sounds like OS X's API has evolved quite a bit in the last 5 years.</p><p>The weird part in the article was when the Mozilla platform engineer said "Neither Safari nor Chrome have to deal with this". I don't know about Chrome but from <a href="http://www.apple.com/safari/download/" title="apple.com">Apple's website</a> [apple.com] it looks like Tiger is still supported for Safari 4:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tiger System Requirements</p><p>Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.11 and Security Update 2009-002 or later</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a Mac person so I do n't keep track of every update , but why is it that OSX 10.4 , a version which only came out in 2005 according to Wikipedia , has so much code that prevents Mozilla from trivially continuing to maintain compatibility in Firefox ? According to the article : Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching backto ATSUI from Core Text , switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2 , anddoing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the treesince we dropped support for 10.4 .
Other areas where 10.4 supportconsumes our time , makes our code more complex or error-prone , and/orlimits our capabilities include complex text input ( IME ) , out-of-process plugins , printing , native menus , and Core Animation.Furthermore , Apple 's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X10.4 .
Sounds like OS X 's API has evolved quite a bit in the last 5 years.The weird part in the article was when the Mozilla platform engineer said " Neither Safari nor Chrome have to deal with this " .
I do n't know about Chrome but from Apple 's website [ apple.com ] it looks like Tiger is still supported for Safari 4 : Tiger System RequirementsMac OS X Tiger 10.4.11 and Security Update 2009-002 or later</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a Mac person so I don't keep track of every update, but why is it that OSX 10.4, a version which only came out in 2005 according to Wikipedia, has so much code that prevents Mozilla from trivially continuing to maintain compatibility in Firefox?According to the article:Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching backto ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, anddoing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the treesince we dropped support for 10.4.
Other areas where 10.4 supportconsumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/orlimits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of-process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation.Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X10.4.
Sounds like OS X's API has evolved quite a bit in the last 5 years.The weird part in the article was when the Mozilla platform engineer said "Neither Safari nor Chrome have to deal with this".
I don't know about Chrome but from Apple's website [apple.com] it looks like Tiger is still supported for Safari 4:Tiger System RequirementsMac OS X Tiger 10.4.11 and Security Update 2009-002 or later
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061254</id>
	<title>Tiger is running on 1/3 of macs</title>
	<author>addininja</author>
	<datestamp>1265649120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to Omni Software update statistics, a third of all macs are still running tiger.

<a href="http://update.omnigroup.com/" title="omnigroup.com" rel="nofollow">http://update.omnigroup.com/</a> [omnigroup.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Omni Software update statistics , a third of all macs are still running tiger .
http : //update.omnigroup.com/ [ omnigroup.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Omni Software update statistics, a third of all macs are still running tiger.
http://update.omnigroup.com/ [omnigroup.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060972</id>
	<title>Re:For all those PPCs out there</title>
	<author>psergiu</author>
	<datestamp>1265647800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Grandma' won't be able to install Ubuntu on her 10.4 running G3 iMac. And even if the grandson does the deed, she won't know how to use it or update it (Firefox on OSX updates automatically).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grandma ' wo n't be able to install Ubuntu on her 10.4 running G3 iMac .
And even if the grandson does the deed , she wo n't know how to use it or update it ( Firefox on OSX updates automatically ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grandma' won't be able to install Ubuntu on her 10.4 running G3 iMac.
And even if the grandson does the deed, she won't know how to use it or update it (Firefox on OSX updates automatically).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061208</id>
	<title>Re:Early compared to Windows</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1265648940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4, released in 2005, while keeping support for Windows 2000, released in 2000. Even if Win2000 support is dropped, XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Win32 API hasn't changed as much; one can still use the latest compilers (VC++ or GCC) to make programs that run on Windows 2000 and all newer versions of Windows.  This does not seem to be the case for OS X.</p><p>Dropping OS X 10.4 support is relatively minor compared to Firefox Linux support; Firefox 3 (released in 2008) didn't compile on RHEL 4 (released in 2005) using the distribution's included dependencies.  Red Hat made it work, but I think the Firefox 3 package includes newer  versions of certain dependencies used only by the Firefox binary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4 , released in 2005 , while keeping support for Windows 2000 , released in 2000 .
Even if Win2000 support is dropped , XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.The Win32 API has n't changed as much ; one can still use the latest compilers ( VC + + or GCC ) to make programs that run on Windows 2000 and all newer versions of Windows .
This does not seem to be the case for OS X.Dropping OS X 10.4 support is relatively minor compared to Firefox Linux support ; Firefox 3 ( released in 2008 ) did n't compile on RHEL 4 ( released in 2005 ) using the distribution 's included dependencies .
Red Hat made it work , but I think the Firefox 3 package includes newer versions of certain dependencies used only by the Firefox binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4, released in 2005, while keeping support for Windows 2000, released in 2000.
Even if Win2000 support is dropped, XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.The Win32 API hasn't changed as much; one can still use the latest compilers (VC++ or GCC) to make programs that run on Windows 2000 and all newer versions of Windows.
This does not seem to be the case for OS X.Dropping OS X 10.4 support is relatively minor compared to Firefox Linux support; Firefox 3 (released in 2008) didn't compile on RHEL 4 (released in 2005) using the distribution's included dependencies.
Red Hat made it work, but I think the Firefox 3 package includes newer  versions of certain dependencies used only by the Firefox binary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061774</id>
	<title>Re:Nooo !</title>
	<author>TJamieson</author>
	<datestamp>1265651460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh, I didn't realize they were stuck with ATSUI on 10.4. That's just nasty; ATSUI has been around since 9.x/10.0.x and definitely was showing its age by 10.4. I can imagine the sorts of IME problems they have too, I remember several cases where 10.5 was much more well-behaved for IME and Unicode support in general than 10.4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh , I did n't realize they were stuck with ATSUI on 10.4 .
That 's just nasty ; ATSUI has been around since 9.x/10.0.x and definitely was showing its age by 10.4 .
I can imagine the sorts of IME problems they have too , I remember several cases where 10.5 was much more well-behaved for IME and Unicode support in general than 10.4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh, I didn't realize they were stuck with ATSUI on 10.4.
That's just nasty; ATSUI has been around since 9.x/10.0.x and definitely was showing its age by 10.4.
I can imagine the sorts of IME problems they have too, I remember several cases where 10.5 was much more well-behaved for IME and Unicode support in general than 10.4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064454</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>beanyk</author>
	<datestamp>1265621400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the Apple website, it's $30 ONLY if you already have Leopard (10.5). Otherwise you have to buy the snow Leopard "Box Set" for $170.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Apple website , it 's $ 30 ONLY if you already have Leopard ( 10.5 ) .
Otherwise you have to buy the snow Leopard " Box Set " for $ 170 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Apple website, it's $30 ONLY if you already have Leopard (10.5).
Otherwise you have to buy the snow Leopard "Box Set" for $170.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061810</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>mini me</author>
	<datestamp>1265651580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what the iPhone platform is running</p></div></blockquote><p>The iPhone runs OS X, just like your Mac.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what the iPhone platform is runningThe iPhone runs OS X , just like your Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what the iPhone platform is runningThe iPhone runs OS X, just like your Mac.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060784</id>
	<title>Firefox already had problems</title>
	<author>sh00z</author>
	<datestamp>1265646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My "recreational" computer is a G4 Powerbook running 10.4, and I've found that realistically, Mozilla stopped caring over a year ago. Even chatting in Facebook is an exercise in futility. Switching to Safari 4 was a no-brainer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My " recreational " computer is a G4 Powerbook running 10.4 , and I 've found that realistically , Mozilla stopped caring over a year ago .
Even chatting in Facebook is an exercise in futility .
Switching to Safari 4 was a no-brainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My "recreational" computer is a G4 Powerbook running 10.4, and I've found that realistically, Mozilla stopped caring over a year ago.
Even chatting in Facebook is an exercise in futility.
Switching to Safari 4 was a no-brainer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062986</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>RebelWebmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265657520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are browser security updates such a big deal to you when you're running an OS that hasn't gotten any in ages?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are browser security updates such a big deal to you when you 're running an OS that has n't gotten any in ages ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are browser security updates such a big deal to you when you're running an OS that hasn't gotten any in ages?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060760</id>
	<title>Re:Nooo !</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265646360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More to the point, what the hell gigantic change could Apple have possibly made to 10.5 to make 10.4 support some kind of giant anchor weighing everything down? Seriously?</p><p>Either:<br>1) Someone's exaggerating and the 10.4 code is actually very small, or<br>2) That's a gigantic WTF from Apple and they should be called on it.</p><p>Normally I'd get pissy over removing support for something that's not really that old, but I guess Mac users are used to that and don't care... so... bully for Mozilla.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , what the hell gigantic change could Apple have possibly made to 10.5 to make 10.4 support some kind of giant anchor weighing everything down ?
Seriously ? Either : 1 ) Someone 's exaggerating and the 10.4 code is actually very small , or2 ) That 's a gigantic WTF from Apple and they should be called on it.Normally I 'd get pissy over removing support for something that 's not really that old , but I guess Mac users are used to that and do n't care... so... bully for Mozilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, what the hell gigantic change could Apple have possibly made to 10.5 to make 10.4 support some kind of giant anchor weighing everything down?
Seriously?Either:1) Someone's exaggerating and the 10.4 code is actually very small, or2) That's a gigantic WTF from Apple and they should be called on it.Normally I'd get pissy over removing support for something that's not really that old, but I guess Mac users are used to that and don't care... so... bully for Mozilla.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062082</id>
	<title>Re:Good decision.</title>
	<author>Tak\_1</author>
	<datestamp>1265653080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Leopard on a Dual core 500.  I had to max the ram, and update the Video card a bit. "GeForce 4 from eBay" It was easy.   Proof, and instructions below.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3620701745\_cb0753c18c\_o.png" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3620701745\_cb0753c18c\_o.png</a> [flickr.com]
<br> <br>
To install Leopard on an "unsupported" G4 clocked under 867 MHz:
<br> <br>
1. Reboot your Mac and hold down the Cmd-Opt-O-F keys until you get a white screen with black text. This is the Open Firmware prompt.
<br> <br>
2. Insert the Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD.
<br> <br>
3. Type the following lines exactly as shown below into the Open Firmware prompt. Be mindful of capitalization, spaces, zeros, etc. If the command is properly typed and understood, Open Firmware will display "ok" at the end of each line after you hit "return". What these lines do is set the CPU speed reported by Open Firmware to OS X as an 867 MHz G4 processor system. They then continue the boot from the DVD drive.
<br> <br>
For single CPUs, use the following three lines:
<br> <br> <br>
For dual CPUs, use the following five lines:
<br> <br>
dev<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cpus/PowerPC,G4@0
d# 867000000 encode-int " clock-frequency" property
dev<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cpus/PowerPC,G4@1
d# 867000000 encode-int " clock-frequency" property
boot cd:,\\:tbxi
<br> <br>
4. Continue the install normally.
<br> <br>
 Not the end of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leopard on a Dual core 500 .
I had to max the ram , and update the Video card a bit .
" GeForce 4 from eBay " It was easy .
Proof , and instructions below .
http : //farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3620701745 \ _cb0753c18c \ _o.png [ flickr.com ] To install Leopard on an " unsupported " G4 clocked under 867 MHz : 1 .
Reboot your Mac and hold down the Cmd-Opt-O-F keys until you get a white screen with black text .
This is the Open Firmware prompt .
2. Insert the Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD .
3. Type the following lines exactly as shown below into the Open Firmware prompt .
Be mindful of capitalization , spaces , zeros , etc .
If the command is properly typed and understood , Open Firmware will display " ok " at the end of each line after you hit " return " .
What these lines do is set the CPU speed reported by Open Firmware to OS X as an 867 MHz G4 processor system .
They then continue the boot from the DVD drive .
For single CPUs , use the following three lines : For dual CPUs , use the following five lines : dev /cpus/PowerPC,G4 @ 0 d # 867000000 encode-int " clock-frequency " property dev /cpus/PowerPC,G4 @ 1 d # 867000000 encode-int " clock-frequency " property boot cd : , \ \ : tbxi 4 .
Continue the install normally .
Not the end of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Leopard on a Dual core 500.
I had to max the ram, and update the Video card a bit.
"GeForce 4 from eBay" It was easy.
Proof, and instructions below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3620701745\_cb0753c18c\_o.png [flickr.com]
 
To install Leopard on an "unsupported" G4 clocked under 867 MHz:
 
1.
Reboot your Mac and hold down the Cmd-Opt-O-F keys until you get a white screen with black text.
This is the Open Firmware prompt.
2. Insert the Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD.
3. Type the following lines exactly as shown below into the Open Firmware prompt.
Be mindful of capitalization, spaces, zeros, etc.
If the command is properly typed and understood, Open Firmware will display "ok" at the end of each line after you hit "return".
What these lines do is set the CPU speed reported by Open Firmware to OS X as an 867 MHz G4 processor system.
They then continue the boot from the DVD drive.
For single CPUs, use the following three lines:
  
For dual CPUs, use the following five lines:
 
dev /cpus/PowerPC,G4@0
d# 867000000 encode-int " clock-frequency" property
dev /cpus/PowerPC,G4@1
d# 867000000 encode-int " clock-frequency" property
boot cd:,\\:tbxi
 
4.
Continue the install normally.
Not the end of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061282</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1265649300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Microsoft keeps a bunch of backward compatible crap in the kernel and the OS, and Apple doesn't.  AFAIK you can still run 16-bit apps on Windows 7.  Honestly this is one of the reasons I like the Mac.  All the deadwood is trimmed on a regular basis.  Look at Snow Leopard, they completely deleted support for PPC and guess what?  it's significantly faster on the supported machines.</p><p>To me this is a lot of complaining about nothing.  I have a iMac G3 400 Mhz that I use as an iTunes server running Leopard.  It's not fast, but it works just fine for browsing, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Microsoft keeps a bunch of backward compatible crap in the kernel and the OS , and Apple does n't .
AFAIK you can still run 16-bit apps on Windows 7 .
Honestly this is one of the reasons I like the Mac .
All the deadwood is trimmed on a regular basis .
Look at Snow Leopard , they completely deleted support for PPC and guess what ?
it 's significantly faster on the supported machines.To me this is a lot of complaining about nothing .
I have a iMac G3 400 Mhz that I use as an iTunes server running Leopard .
It 's not fast , but it works just fine for browsing , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Microsoft keeps a bunch of backward compatible crap in the kernel and the OS, and Apple doesn't.
AFAIK you can still run 16-bit apps on Windows 7.
Honestly this is one of the reasons I like the Mac.
All the deadwood is trimmed on a regular basis.
Look at Snow Leopard, they completely deleted support for PPC and guess what?
it's significantly faster on the supported machines.To me this is a lot of complaining about nothing.
I have a iMac G3 400 Mhz that I use as an iTunes server running Leopard.
It's not fast, but it works just fine for browsing, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061428</id>
	<title>This, basically, is why I left Mac</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1265650020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong, here: I do understand that an OS has to change as it develops, in order to make any progress...  And I understand that an almost unavoidable consequence of this is that older versions of the OS will not be able to support programs built for newer versions, and that maintaining application code for older versions of the OS is a lot of extra work...</p><p>But I really found it very frustrating when I was a Mac user, that I had to either continually upgrade the OS, or else lose access to new versions of things like VLC and Mozilla.  It's a cultural thing, I guess: I'm used to those kinds of updates being free.  This is why my 12" powerbook has been gathering dust ever since I got a EEE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , here : I do understand that an OS has to change as it develops , in order to make any progress... And I understand that an almost unavoidable consequence of this is that older versions of the OS will not be able to support programs built for newer versions , and that maintaining application code for older versions of the OS is a lot of extra work...But I really found it very frustrating when I was a Mac user , that I had to either continually upgrade the OS , or else lose access to new versions of things like VLC and Mozilla .
It 's a cultural thing , I guess : I 'm used to those kinds of updates being free .
This is why my 12 " powerbook has been gathering dust ever since I got a EEE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, here: I do understand that an OS has to change as it develops, in order to make any progress...  And I understand that an almost unavoidable consequence of this is that older versions of the OS will not be able to support programs built for newer versions, and that maintaining application code for older versions of the OS is a lot of extra work...But I really found it very frustrating when I was a Mac user, that I had to either continually upgrade the OS, or else lose access to new versions of things like VLC and Mozilla.
It's a cultural thing, I guess: I'm used to those kinds of updates being free.
This is why my 12" powerbook has been gathering dust ever since I got a EEE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061496</id>
	<title>I blame apple</title>
	<author>rjolley</author>
	<datestamp>1265650260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the OS that came with my 3 year old macbook and it's already no longer being supported.  Most recently I had to compile subversion from source just to get the latest version running (universal binaries for subversion are no longer available for the latest release.)  Apple should know better and release these updates as part of some sort of "service pack" if you will. If this were Microsoft's operating system the haters would be all over it, but I guess since it's Apple, I should have been expected to replace my laptop with one running the latest OS last year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the OS that came with my 3 year old macbook and it 's already no longer being supported .
Most recently I had to compile subversion from source just to get the latest version running ( universal binaries for subversion are no longer available for the latest release .
) Apple should know better and release these updates as part of some sort of " service pack " if you will .
If this were Microsoft 's operating system the haters would be all over it , but I guess since it 's Apple , I should have been expected to replace my laptop with one running the latest OS last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the OS that came with my 3 year old macbook and it's already no longer being supported.
Most recently I had to compile subversion from source just to get the latest version running (universal binaries for subversion are no longer available for the latest release.
)  Apple should know better and release these updates as part of some sort of "service pack" if you will.
If this were Microsoft's operating system the haters would be all over it, but I guess since it's Apple, I should have been expected to replace my laptop with one running the latest OS last year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061062</id>
	<title>Re:Early compared to Windows</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1265648280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it's to do with percentages...<br>What percentage of windows users still use XP? Probably quite high, and there isn't much difference between 2000 and XP.<br>On the other hand, the percentage of Mac users still running 10.4 is quite low, at least all the mac users i know are running something more recent these days even if they might also own an older machine still running 10.4.</p><p>Also to do with how recently each version was available, XP is still on sale and you can buy machines even today with it preinstalled. OSX 10.4 on the other hand does not ship on any current macs and hasn't for over 2 years, and isn't available separately either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's to do with percentages...What percentage of windows users still use XP ?
Probably quite high , and there is n't much difference between 2000 and XP.On the other hand , the percentage of Mac users still running 10.4 is quite low , at least all the mac users i know are running something more recent these days even if they might also own an older machine still running 10.4.Also to do with how recently each version was available , XP is still on sale and you can buy machines even today with it preinstalled .
OSX 10.4 on the other hand does not ship on any current macs and has n't for over 2 years , and is n't available separately either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's to do with percentages...What percentage of windows users still use XP?
Probably quite high, and there isn't much difference between 2000 and XP.On the other hand, the percentage of Mac users still running 10.4 is quite low, at least all the mac users i know are running something more recent these days even if they might also own an older machine still running 10.4.Also to do with how recently each version was available, XP is still on sale and you can buy machines even today with it preinstalled.
OSX 10.4 on the other hand does not ship on any current macs and hasn't for over 2 years, and isn't available separately either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061472</id>
	<title>Re:For all those PPCs out there</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1265650140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you install Firefox from the repos, it's dead easy making it auto-upgrade.</p><p>apt-get install cron-apt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you install Firefox from the repos , it 's dead easy making it auto-upgrade.apt-get install cron-apt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you install Firefox from the repos, it's dead easy making it auto-upgrade.apt-get install cron-apt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061894</id>
	<title>Re:How can I upgrade?</title>
	<author>Enahs</author>
	<datestamp>1265652120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Version-10-5-6-Leopard/dp/B000FK88JK" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Version-10-5-6-Leopard/dp/B000FK88JK</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>Amazon has a list of retailers who sell 10.5.6.  I'm sure you can find other sources.  One good place to start a search for older Mac stuff is <a href="http://lowendmac.com/" title="lowendmac.com">http://lowendmac.com/</a> [lowendmac.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Version-10-5-6-Leopard/dp/B000FK88JK [ amazon.com ] Amazon has a list of retailers who sell 10.5.6 .
I 'm sure you can find other sources .
One good place to start a search for older Mac stuff is http : //lowendmac.com/ [ lowendmac.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Version-10-5-6-Leopard/dp/B000FK88JK [amazon.com]Amazon has a list of retailers who sell 10.5.6.
I'm sure you can find other sources.
One good place to start a search for older Mac stuff is http://lowendmac.com/ [lowendmac.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066126</id>
	<title>Re:For all those PPCs out there</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1265627940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've toyed with this on and off, but using Linux on a PowerBook with a one-button trackpad isn't that pleasant. OSX is designed around an expectation of one button, but Linux really expects two, preferably three. For a desktop you'd just buy a new mouse, of course, but for a laptop the workarounds are more clunky--- one common one seems to be binding F12 to right-click.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've toyed with this on and off , but using Linux on a PowerBook with a one-button trackpad is n't that pleasant .
OSX is designed around an expectation of one button , but Linux really expects two , preferably three .
For a desktop you 'd just buy a new mouse , of course , but for a laptop the workarounds are more clunky--- one common one seems to be binding F12 to right-click .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've toyed with this on and off, but using Linux on a PowerBook with a one-button trackpad isn't that pleasant.
OSX is designed around an expectation of one button, but Linux really expects two, preferably three.
For a desktop you'd just buy a new mouse, of course, but for a laptop the workarounds are more clunky--- one common one seems to be binding F12 to right-click.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060686</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265645940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac OS X is going to be phased out in favor of what the iPhone platform is running anyway. No viruses, no spyware. Because every app is signed and from the app store.</p><p>I welcome this change.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>Bill Wagoner<br>Windows NT  3.51 Forwards Compatibility Team Lead</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS X is going to be phased out in favor of what the iPhone platform is running anyway .
No viruses , no spyware .
Because every app is signed and from the app store.I welcome this change.Sincerely,Bill WagonerWindows NT 3.51 Forwards Compatibility Team Lead</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS X is going to be phased out in favor of what the iPhone platform is running anyway.
No viruses, no spyware.
Because every app is signed and from the app store.I welcome this change.Sincerely,Bill WagonerWindows NT  3.51 Forwards Compatibility Team Lead</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061198</id>
	<title>Re:Early compared to Windows</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1265648880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OS X is actually actively developed.  Look, its FIREFOX making this decision, because coding for 10.4 is a bitch when there are plenty of shiny new more easily maintained APIs available in 10.5 and later.
<p>
Garbage collection, fast enumeration, properties, Coretext, etc.  The ui might look the same between os x versions, but coding for 10.5 vs 10.4 or earlier is significantly different and less painful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X is actually actively developed .
Look , its FIREFOX making this decision , because coding for 10.4 is a bitch when there are plenty of shiny new more easily maintained APIs available in 10.5 and later .
Garbage collection , fast enumeration , properties , Coretext , etc .
The ui might look the same between os x versions , but coding for 10.5 vs 10.4 or earlier is significantly different and less painful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X is actually actively developed.
Look, its FIREFOX making this decision, because coding for 10.4 is a bitch when there are plenty of shiny new more easily maintained APIs available in 10.5 and later.
Garbage collection, fast enumeration, properties, Coretext, etc.
The ui might look the same between os x versions, but coding for 10.5 vs 10.4 or earlier is significantly different and less painful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063474</id>
	<title>Re:This, basically, is why I left Mac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265659860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Windows 2000 is 10 years old, XP is 9 years old. 10.4 was still being shipped on new computers less than three years ago. And some of these computers don't even have an upgrade path: Apple no longer sells Leopard, and do not support the older hardware in Snow Leopard. So basically, if you have a G4 Mac... you're fucked. Time to buy a new Mac!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Windows 2000 is 10 years old , XP is 9 years old .
10.4 was still being shipped on new computers less than three years ago .
And some of these computers do n't even have an upgrade path : Apple no longer sells Leopard , and do not support the older hardware in Snow Leopard .
So basically , if you have a G4 Mac... you 're fucked .
Time to buy a new Mac !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Windows 2000 is 10 years old, XP is 9 years old.
10.4 was still being shipped on new computers less than three years ago.
And some of these computers don't even have an upgrade path: Apple no longer sells Leopard, and do not support the older hardware in Snow Leopard.
So basically, if you have a G4 Mac... you're fucked.
Time to buy a new Mac!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060658</id>
	<title>Seems like a waste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eenie, meenie, miney, moe.<br>Catch a tiger by its toe.<br>If he hollers, let him go.<br>Eenie, meenie, miney, moe.</p><p>The nursery rhyme above is actually an old racist saying from our dead brothers in the Southeastern United States. It is about searching out and recapturing escaped slaves. It's been several decades since slave ownership has been illegal in our country, but children are still taught this seemingly innocuous little rhyme.</p><p>Like the rhyme, OS X Tiger is something that we should just let go of at this point. There is no reason why someone should stick with the outdated and terribly vulnerable OS in the face of a better OS X version. Does the Snow Leopard change his spots? Yes, as much as American culture can turn its back on its past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eenie , meenie , miney , moe.Catch a tiger by its toe.If he hollers , let him go.Eenie , meenie , miney , moe.The nursery rhyme above is actually an old racist saying from our dead brothers in the Southeastern United States .
It is about searching out and recapturing escaped slaves .
It 's been several decades since slave ownership has been illegal in our country , but children are still taught this seemingly innocuous little rhyme.Like the rhyme , OS X Tiger is something that we should just let go of at this point .
There is no reason why someone should stick with the outdated and terribly vulnerable OS in the face of a better OS X version .
Does the Snow Leopard change his spots ?
Yes , as much as American culture can turn its back on its past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eenie, meenie, miney, moe.Catch a tiger by its toe.If he hollers, let him go.Eenie, meenie, miney, moe.The nursery rhyme above is actually an old racist saying from our dead brothers in the Southeastern United States.
It is about searching out and recapturing escaped slaves.
It's been several decades since slave ownership has been illegal in our country, but children are still taught this seemingly innocuous little rhyme.Like the rhyme, OS X Tiger is something that we should just let go of at this point.
There is no reason why someone should stick with the outdated and terribly vulnerable OS in the face of a better OS X version.
Does the Snow Leopard change his spots?
Yes, as much as American culture can turn its back on its past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061552</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265650500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Buy, buy, buy...what a pain.   How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?</p></div><p>Firefox is open source.  If you want the patches, write them yourself.  If that is too much work for you, then I am sure you will understand why others are reluctant to do it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy , buy , buy...what a pain .
How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers ? Firefox is open source .
If you want the patches , write them yourself .
If that is too much work for you , then I am sure you will understand why others are reluctant to do it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy, buy, buy...what a pain.
How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?Firefox is open source.
If you want the patches, write them yourself.
If that is too much work for you, then I am sure you will understand why others are reluctant to do it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060880</id>
	<title>Re:Nooo !</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1265647140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a taste of the <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/af556fc8e7e7a3f5" title="google.com">changes between Tiger and Leopard/Snow Leopard</a> [google.com]. Even though Leopard-&gt;Snow Leopard was (relatively) incremental stabilization and refinement, remember that Leopard was a *big* upgrade.</p><blockquote><div><p>Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back to ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, and doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree since we dropped support for 10.4. Other areas where 10.4 support consumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/or limits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of-process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation. Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X 10.4.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a taste of the changes between Tiger and Leopard/Snow Leopard [ google.com ] .
Even though Leopard- &gt; Snow Leopard was ( relatively ) incremental stabilization and refinement , remember that Leopard was a * big * upgrade.Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back to ATSUI from Core Text , switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2 , and doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree since we dropped support for 10.4 .
Other areas where 10.4 support consumes our time , makes our code more complex or error-prone , and/or limits our capabilities include complex text input ( IME ) , out-of-process plugins , printing , native menus , and Core Animation .
Furthermore , Apple 's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X 10.4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a taste of the changes between Tiger and Leopard/Snow Leopard [google.com].
Even though Leopard-&gt;Snow Leopard was (relatively) incremental stabilization and refinement, remember that Leopard was a *big* upgrade.Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back to ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, and doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree since we dropped support for 10.4.
Other areas where 10.4 support consumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/or limits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of-process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation.
Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X 10.4.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31081834</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome To The Upgrade Treadmill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265733900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mac OS X is on a definite upgrade treadmill: Apple wants to do a major OS update every 2 years</i></p><p>So does Microsoft, but so far they've been too fucking incompetent to pull that off. And Vista -&gt; Windows 7 does count. 7 is just Vista with the really annoying shit fixed, no matter how badly Microsoft wants you to believe it's a major new version.</p><p>However, I will give Microsoft credit for that Software Assurance crap, where they convinced companies to pay them in exchange for basically nothing, while they were bungling the development of Vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS X is on a definite upgrade treadmill : Apple wants to do a major OS update every 2 yearsSo does Microsoft , but so far they 've been too fucking incompetent to pull that off .
And Vista - &gt; Windows 7 does count .
7 is just Vista with the really annoying shit fixed , no matter how badly Microsoft wants you to believe it 's a major new version.However , I will give Microsoft credit for that Software Assurance crap , where they convinced companies to pay them in exchange for basically nothing , while they were bungling the development of Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS X is on a definite upgrade treadmill: Apple wants to do a major OS update every 2 yearsSo does Microsoft, but so far they've been too fucking incompetent to pull that off.
And Vista -&gt; Windows 7 does count.
7 is just Vista with the really annoying shit fixed, no matter how badly Microsoft wants you to believe it's a major new version.However, I will give Microsoft credit for that Software Assurance crap, where they convinced companies to pay them in exchange for basically nothing, while they were bungling the development of Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061574</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>Enahs</author>
	<datestamp>1265650680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For various reasons I'm stuck maintaining a building full of machines running Tiger.  I can confirm that Safari 4 works just fine in Tiger (in fact, I'm posting this comment in Safari.)</p><p>With the economy improving we're hoping to start phasing out the pieces of software which keep us glued to PPC and OS X 10.4; having said that, we haven't even been completely successful in eradicating OS 8.6 and 9.2.2 yet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For various reasons I 'm stuck maintaining a building full of machines running Tiger .
I can confirm that Safari 4 works just fine in Tiger ( in fact , I 'm posting this comment in Safari .
) With the economy improving we 're hoping to start phasing out the pieces of software which keep us glued to PPC and OS X 10.4 ; having said that , we have n't even been completely successful in eradicating OS 8.6 and 9.2.2 yet .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For various reasons I'm stuck maintaining a building full of machines running Tiger.
I can confirm that Safari 4 works just fine in Tiger (in fact, I'm posting this comment in Safari.
)With the economy improving we're hoping to start phasing out the pieces of software which keep us glued to PPC and OS X 10.4; having said that, we haven't even been completely successful in eradicating OS 8.6 and 9.2.2 yet.
:-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31071442</id>
	<title>Re:Nooo !</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1265727780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CoreText won't help with that.  The systemwide spell checker is a system service that is automatically supported by the high-level text view classes.  Core Text is a low-level API for laying out sequences of glyphs on the screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CoreText wo n't help with that .
The systemwide spell checker is a system service that is automatically supported by the high-level text view classes .
Core Text is a low-level API for laying out sequences of glyphs on the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CoreText won't help with that.
The systemwide spell checker is a system service that is automatically supported by the high-level text view classes.
Core Text is a low-level API for laying out sequences of glyphs on the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061506</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>dn15</author>
	<datestamp>1265650320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A shame.  I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008, and they won't want to upgrade their OS after just over a year.</p></div><p>People with older PowerPC hardware may feel stuck between a rock and a hard place, yes. But there are a couple free/cheap solutions for those running Intel Macs:<br>- Use Safari: The current version (4.0.4 at the moment) is available for 10.4. Granted the next major version may or may not, but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.<br>- Get Snow Leopard for only $29 and run any version of Firefox you want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A shame .
I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008 , and they wo n't want to upgrade their OS after just over a year.People with older PowerPC hardware may feel stuck between a rock and a hard place , yes .
But there are a couple free/cheap solutions for those running Intel Macs : - Use Safari : The current version ( 4.0.4 at the moment ) is available for 10.4 .
Granted the next major version may or may not , but we 'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.- Get Snow Leopard for only $ 29 and run any version of Firefox you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A shame.
I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008, and they won't want to upgrade their OS after just over a year.People with older PowerPC hardware may feel stuck between a rock and a hard place, yes.
But there are a couple free/cheap solutions for those running Intel Macs:- Use Safari: The current version (4.0.4 at the moment) is available for 10.4.
Granted the next major version may or may not, but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.- Get Snow Leopard for only $29 and run any version of Firefox you want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061188</id>
	<title>Re:How can I upgrade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265648820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, if you buy a copy of [current version] OS X from the local Apple store they will give you a burned CD or DVD copy of [old version] OS X upon request.  I may be wrong, but I was told by the local store that it was an official Apple policy that allowed them to do this.  As long as you've newly bought a license of some OX version, you should be good to go.</p><p>Barring that (maybe your local Apple vendor sucks), buy a current version license and then get an older one from some other source, and don't feel guilty about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , if you buy a copy of [ current version ] OS X from the local Apple store they will give you a burned CD or DVD copy of [ old version ] OS X upon request .
I may be wrong , but I was told by the local store that it was an official Apple policy that allowed them to do this .
As long as you 've newly bought a license of some OX version , you should be good to go.Barring that ( maybe your local Apple vendor sucks ) , buy a current version license and then get an older one from some other source , and do n't feel guilty about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, if you buy a copy of [current version] OS X from the local Apple store they will give you a burned CD or DVD copy of [old version] OS X upon request.
I may be wrong, but I was told by the local store that it was an official Apple policy that allowed them to do this.
As long as you've newly bought a license of some OX version, you should be good to go.Barring that (maybe your local Apple vendor sucks), buy a current version license and then get an older one from some other source, and don't feel guilty about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060648</id>
	<title>LOL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265645760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061650</id>
	<title>Jaguar User</title>
	<author>gertam</author>
	<datestamp>1265650980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am still using Jaguar on a number of machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am still using Jaguar on a number of machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am still using Jaguar on a number of machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722</id>
	<title>How can I upgrade?</title>
	<author>The Flymaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, where can I get a guaranteed legal version of Leopard? I've got a G4 Powerbook that I never upgraded, and it seems that Apple doesn't sell 10.5 anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , where can I get a guaranteed legal version of Leopard ?
I 've got a G4 Powerbook that I never upgraded , and it seems that Apple does n't sell 10.5 anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, where can I get a guaranteed legal version of Leopard?
I've got a G4 Powerbook that I never upgraded, and it seems that Apple doesn't sell 10.5 anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062044</id>
	<title>Some statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265652900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, I'm still running 10.4 just because it works perfectly fine for me, I've got everything installed and running, and I don't want to pay for an upgrade only because I've got to have the latest version. Since Leopard came out, I've only found a handful of apps that I couldn't run, but I've always found an alternative (either an older version or a similar app). Therefore, I don't feel compelled at all to upgrade: my machine works well, it is still very responsive, and the apps available are more than enough. My only concern is the Java version included, but I've managed to stay clear of 1.6 compatibility issues.</p><p>I've always used Firefox in my Mac Book Pro, and with the few upgrades that caused problems I noticed that problems never lasted for more than a couple of weeks, until a new update solved everything. In that regard I'm very happy with Firefox's development team.</p><p>I did some quick research and I found two sources of information about the usage of Tiger as of 2010. One comes from Adium, the other from something called The Panic Blog. As you can see, the percentage of people still running Tiger is close to 10 percent in both cases. It is a pity that there is no information available about how many Firefox users on Mac are still using Tiger.</p><p>Adium report: http://adium.im/sparkle/?year=2010&amp;week=05&amp;graph=bar<br>The Panic Blog report: http://www.panic.com/blog/2009/12/mac-os-x-stats-12-2009/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I 'm still running 10.4 just because it works perfectly fine for me , I 've got everything installed and running , and I do n't want to pay for an upgrade only because I 've got to have the latest version .
Since Leopard came out , I 've only found a handful of apps that I could n't run , but I 've always found an alternative ( either an older version or a similar app ) .
Therefore , I do n't feel compelled at all to upgrade : my machine works well , it is still very responsive , and the apps available are more than enough .
My only concern is the Java version included , but I 've managed to stay clear of 1.6 compatibility issues.I 've always used Firefox in my Mac Book Pro , and with the few upgrades that caused problems I noticed that problems never lasted for more than a couple of weeks , until a new update solved everything .
In that regard I 'm very happy with Firefox 's development team.I did some quick research and I found two sources of information about the usage of Tiger as of 2010 .
One comes from Adium , the other from something called The Panic Blog .
As you can see , the percentage of people still running Tiger is close to 10 percent in both cases .
It is a pity that there is no information available about how many Firefox users on Mac are still using Tiger.Adium report : http : //adium.im/sparkle/ ? year = 2010&amp;week = 05&amp;graph = barThe Panic Blog report : http : //www.panic.com/blog/2009/12/mac-os-x-stats-12-2009/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I'm still running 10.4 just because it works perfectly fine for me, I've got everything installed and running, and I don't want to pay for an upgrade only because I've got to have the latest version.
Since Leopard came out, I've only found a handful of apps that I couldn't run, but I've always found an alternative (either an older version or a similar app).
Therefore, I don't feel compelled at all to upgrade: my machine works well, it is still very responsive, and the apps available are more than enough.
My only concern is the Java version included, but I've managed to stay clear of 1.6 compatibility issues.I've always used Firefox in my Mac Book Pro, and with the few upgrades that caused problems I noticed that problems never lasted for more than a couple of weeks, until a new update solved everything.
In that regard I'm very happy with Firefox's development team.I did some quick research and I found two sources of information about the usage of Tiger as of 2010.
One comes from Adium, the other from something called The Panic Blog.
As you can see, the percentage of people still running Tiger is close to 10 percent in both cases.
It is a pity that there is no information available about how many Firefox users on Mac are still using Tiger.Adium report: http://adium.im/sparkle/?year=2010&amp;week=05&amp;graph=barThe Panic Blog report: http://www.panic.com/blog/2009/12/mac-os-x-stats-12-2009/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31068630</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Lots of people are still running this on G3 machines that can't upgrade to Leopard.</i></p><p>So, don't upgrade Firefox?</p><p>I mean, 10.4 doesn't get any security updates anymore so the machine is at risk anyway.  Those people have already gotten burned by Apple.</p><p>Fedora PPC is the only secure upgrade path, AFAIK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people are still running this on G3 machines that ca n't upgrade to Leopard.So , do n't upgrade Firefox ? I mean , 10.4 does n't get any security updates anymore so the machine is at risk anyway .
Those people have already gotten burned by Apple.Fedora PPC is the only secure upgrade path , AFAIK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people are still running this on G3 machines that can't upgrade to Leopard.So, don't upgrade Firefox?I mean, 10.4 doesn't get any security updates anymore so the machine is at risk anyway.
Those people have already gotten burned by Apple.Fedora PPC is the only secure upgrade path, AFAIK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830</id>
	<title>Early compared to Windows</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1265646840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4, released in 2005, while keeping support for Windows 2000, released in 2000. Even if Win2000 support is dropped, XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.</p><p>I know Apple isn't exactly famous for backwards compatibility, but is it this extreme? Is the stereotype true that Mac owners are people with too much money to spare that will buy anything as soon as Apple tells them too? Are there no businesses using 10.4 that are holding off on upgrading?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4 , released in 2005 , while keeping support for Windows 2000 , released in 2000 .
Even if Win2000 support is dropped , XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.I know Apple is n't exactly famous for backwards compatibility , but is it this extreme ?
Is the stereotype true that Mac owners are people with too much money to spare that will buy anything as soon as Apple tells them too ?
Are there no businesses using 10.4 that are holding off on upgrading ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4, released in 2005, while keeping support for Windows 2000, released in 2000.
Even if Win2000 support is dropped, XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.I know Apple isn't exactly famous for backwards compatibility, but is it this extreme?
Is the stereotype true that Mac owners are people with too much money to spare that will buy anything as soon as Apple tells them too?
Are there no businesses using 10.4 that are holding off on upgrading?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060772</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265646420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.   If I can get the "Hello World" program to run on every piece of hardware that I have in my house from my new Intel Mac Mini all the way back to my 1980s VAX systems in my basement, why can't good coders have the hardware &amp; OS -dependent stuff in separate files so those of us who choose to have older equipment can keep it running.<br>(for the record, I also have a PPC Mac mini running 10.4 as well as a PPC iMac running 10.3...and yes, nobody is forcing me to upgrade so I'll just stop at the last supported version)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
If I can get the " Hello World " program to run on every piece of hardware that I have in my house from my new Intel Mac Mini all the way back to my 1980s VAX systems in my basement , why ca n't good coders have the hardware &amp; OS -dependent stuff in separate files so those of us who choose to have older equipment can keep it running .
( for the record , I also have a PPC Mac mini running 10.4 as well as a PPC iMac running 10.3...and yes , nobody is forcing me to upgrade so I 'll just stop at the last supported version )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
If I can get the "Hello World" program to run on every piece of hardware that I have in my house from my new Intel Mac Mini all the way back to my 1980s VAX systems in my basement, why can't good coders have the hardware &amp; OS -dependent stuff in separate files so those of us who choose to have older equipment can keep it running.
(for the record, I also have a PPC Mac mini running 10.4 as well as a PPC iMac running 10.3...and yes, nobody is forcing me to upgrade so I'll just stop at the last supported version)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061308</id>
	<title>Re:Minor version</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1265649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.x release in OS X land is actually a major release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a .x release in OS X land is actually a major release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a .x release in OS X land is actually a major release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061402</id>
	<title>Re:How can I upgrade?</title>
	<author>dn15</author>
	<datestamp>1265649840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, where can I get a guaranteed legal version of Leopard? I've got a G4 Powerbook that I never upgraded, and it seems that Apple doesn't sell 10.5 anymore.</p></div><p>I'd look for one posted on Craigslist, or even post a "wanted" ad of your own. That way before you buy you can see the media firsthand and verify it's a factory disc and not a burned copy. Just make sure you get a regular retail copy -- ie. not the gray restore disc that came with a specific Mac. Those typically refuse to install on anything but the model it came with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , where can I get a guaranteed legal version of Leopard ?
I 've got a G4 Powerbook that I never upgraded , and it seems that Apple does n't sell 10.5 anymore.I 'd look for one posted on Craigslist , or even post a " wanted " ad of your own .
That way before you buy you can see the media firsthand and verify it 's a factory disc and not a burned copy .
Just make sure you get a regular retail copy -- ie .
not the gray restore disc that came with a specific Mac .
Those typically refuse to install on anything but the model it came with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, where can I get a guaranteed legal version of Leopard?
I've got a G4 Powerbook that I never upgraded, and it seems that Apple doesn't sell 10.5 anymore.I'd look for one posted on Craigslist, or even post a "wanted" ad of your own.
That way before you buy you can see the media firsthand and verify it's a factory disc and not a burned copy.
Just make sure you get a regular retail copy -- ie.
not the gray restore disc that came with a specific Mac.
Those typically refuse to install on anything but the model it came with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061082</id>
	<title>Re:Minor version</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1265648400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New and better APIs that make coding easier and less bug prone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New and better APIs that make coding easier and less bug prone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New and better APIs that make coding easier and less bug prone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061416</id>
	<title>Re:How can I upgrade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265649960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ebay, about $30 for sealed retail copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ebay , about $ 30 for sealed retail copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ebay, about $30 for sealed retail copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063480</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox already had problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265659920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turning off a particular precompiled code thingie in about:config fixed the horrific facebook lag issues I was seeing.  The Moz mod posting in the discussion warned us not to do that though, on the grounds that we'd forget to reset it when the issue was fixed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turning off a particular precompiled code thingie in about : config fixed the horrific facebook lag issues I was seeing .
The Moz mod posting in the discussion warned us not to do that though , on the grounds that we 'd forget to reset it when the issue was fixed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turning off a particular precompiled code thingie in about:config fixed the horrific facebook lag issues I was seeing.
The Moz mod posting in the discussion warned us not to do that though, on the grounds that we'd forget to reset it when the issue was fixed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061172</id>
	<title>Re:Good decision.</title>
	<author>PenguSven</author>
	<datestamp>1265648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Those of you still running Tiger on your G3s will have to switch to Opera 10, and considering how slooooow those ancient machines are with the modern Web you ought to be using Opera anyhow.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Or they could just, ya know, use Safari 4. Firefox and Opera are both pretty crummy examples of good Mac software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those of you still running Tiger on your G3s will have to switch to Opera 10 , and considering how slooooow those ancient machines are with the modern Web you ought to be using Opera anyhow .
Or they could just , ya know , use Safari 4 .
Firefox and Opera are both pretty crummy examples of good Mac software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those of you still running Tiger on your G3s will have to switch to Opera 10, and considering how slooooow those ancient machines are with the modern Web you ought to be using Opera anyhow.
Or they could just, ya know, use Safari 4.
Firefox and Opera are both pretty crummy examples of good Mac software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064798</id>
	<title>Re:Early compared to Windows</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1265622960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider that the latest version of Safari is still supported on Tiger...</p><p>This is not Apple's decision, although there were large API changes between 10.4 and 10.5 that make supporting pre-10.5 more challenging for third party developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider that the latest version of Safari is still supported on Tiger...This is not Apple 's decision , although there were large API changes between 10.4 and 10.5 that make supporting pre-10.5 more challenging for third party developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider that the latest version of Safari is still supported on Tiger...This is not Apple's decision, although there were large API changes between 10.4 and 10.5 that make supporting pre-10.5 more challenging for third party developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066464</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>jeremyp</author>
	<datestamp>1265629440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A shame.  I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008</p></div><p>No you don't.  OS X 10.5 was released in October 2007.  Any new Macbook bought in 2008 would have shipped with it.</p><p>As of now, 10.5 is nearly two and a half years old.  By the time Firefox 3.6 stops getting patched, (end of 2011?) it will be about four years old.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A shame .
I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008No you do n't .
OS X 10.5 was released in October 2007 .
Any new Macbook bought in 2008 would have shipped with it.As of now , 10.5 is nearly two and a half years old .
By the time Firefox 3.6 stops getting patched , ( end of 2011 ?
) it will be about four years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A shame.
I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008No you don't.
OS X 10.5 was released in October 2007.
Any new Macbook bought in 2008 would have shipped with it.As of now, 10.5 is nearly two and a half years old.
By the time Firefox 3.6 stops getting patched, (end of 2011?
) it will be about four years old.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062164</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265653500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a big difference is that microsoft makes most of windows upwards compatible, or if you prefer, most recent windows versions are backward compatible<br>in macosx, apple deprecate and supress funtionality, so you need both code path in your code, which is complex, leads to larger size, bugs, etc etc.</p><p>thus for a developer, its much more interesting to remove the extra code for osx than it is for windows</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a big difference is that microsoft makes most of windows upwards compatible , or if you prefer , most recent windows versions are backward compatiblein macosx , apple deprecate and supress funtionality , so you need both code path in your code , which is complex , leads to larger size , bugs , etc etc.thus for a developer , its much more interesting to remove the extra code for osx than it is for windows</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a big difference is that microsoft makes most of windows upwards compatible, or if you prefer, most recent windows versions are backward compatiblein macosx, apple deprecate and supress funtionality, so you need both code path in your code, which is complex, leads to larger size, bugs, etc etc.thus for a developer, its much more interesting to remove the extra code for osx than it is for windows</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063528</id>
	<title>Oh, that explains Tiger.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought he had some kind of uncontrollable sex addiction.  Now I see he's just been turned out to stud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought he had some kind of uncontrollable sex addiction .
Now I see he 's just been turned out to stud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought he had some kind of uncontrollable sex addiction.
Now I see he's just been turned out to stud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720</id>
	<title>Good decision.</title>
	<author>schmidt349</author>
	<datestamp>1265646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's foolish to continue supporting obsolete platforms until the end of time -- Windows developers take notice. Besides, very few people are put out in the cold by this decision -- 10.5 will run on most Macs (with the exception of iBook G3s) from the end of 2002 onward. I think between 5 and 7 years of backward compatibility in hardware is good enough.</p><p>Those of you still running Tiger on your G3s will have to switch to Opera 10, and considering how slooooow those ancient machines are with the modern Web you ought to be using Opera anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's foolish to continue supporting obsolete platforms until the end of time -- Windows developers take notice .
Besides , very few people are put out in the cold by this decision -- 10.5 will run on most Macs ( with the exception of iBook G3s ) from the end of 2002 onward .
I think between 5 and 7 years of backward compatibility in hardware is good enough.Those of you still running Tiger on your G3s will have to switch to Opera 10 , and considering how slooooow those ancient machines are with the modern Web you ought to be using Opera anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's foolish to continue supporting obsolete platforms until the end of time -- Windows developers take notice.
Besides, very few people are put out in the cold by this decision -- 10.5 will run on most Macs (with the exception of iBook G3s) from the end of 2002 onward.
I think between 5 and 7 years of backward compatibility in hardware is good enough.Those of you still running Tiger on your G3s will have to switch to Opera 10, and considering how slooooow those ancient machines are with the modern Web you ought to be using Opera anyhow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31067220</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>joemite</author>
	<datestamp>1265633820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is still support on Windows 2000 because Microsoft refuses to remove anything from their API. Which explains why Windows has grown exponentially over the last couple of decades.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is still support on Windows 2000 because Microsoft refuses to remove anything from their API .
Which explains why Windows has grown exponentially over the last couple of decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is still support on Windows 2000 because Microsoft refuses to remove anything from their API.
Which explains why Windows has grown exponentially over the last couple of decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</id>
	<title>Phasing out support for 10.4?  I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265646600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A shame.  I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008, and they won't want to upgrade their OS after just over a year.  I have a 700 mhz ibook that is great to travel with and does everything I want it to, but is slowly becoming insecure because it's gradually becoming unsupported.  Yet it runs fine, and I'd cheerfully stick with it if I could.</p><p>Buy, buy, buy...what a pain.   How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A shame .
I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008 , and they wo n't want to upgrade their OS after just over a year .
I have a 700 mhz ibook that is great to travel with and does everything I want it to , but is slowly becoming insecure because it 's gradually becoming unsupported .
Yet it runs fine , and I 'd cheerfully stick with it if I could.Buy , buy , buy...what a pain .
How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A shame.
I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008, and they won't want to upgrade their OS after just over a year.
I have a 700 mhz ibook that is great to travel with and does everything I want it to, but is slowly becoming insecure because it's gradually becoming unsupported.
Yet it runs fine, and I'd cheerfully stick with it if I could.Buy, buy, buy...what a pain.
How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31071020</id>
	<title>Re:How can I upgrade?</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1265725440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, that's the problem here.  You can't buy 10.5 from the Apple stores any more - they will tell you to get it on Ebay, where it costs up to a hundred dollars.  Still, anyone who uses a Mac has to accept the fact that when uncle Steve tells you to spend money, you spend it.  I've noticed that free software I'd like to install on my girlfriend's iMac G5 has started dropping support for OS 10.4, so I'll probably get the upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that 's the problem here .
You ca n't buy 10.5 from the Apple stores any more - they will tell you to get it on Ebay , where it costs up to a hundred dollars .
Still , anyone who uses a Mac has to accept the fact that when uncle Steve tells you to spend money , you spend it .
I 've noticed that free software I 'd like to install on my girlfriend 's iMac G5 has started dropping support for OS 10.4 , so I 'll probably get the upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that's the problem here.
You can't buy 10.5 from the Apple stores any more - they will tell you to get it on Ebay, where it costs up to a hundred dollars.
Still, anyone who uses a Mac has to accept the fact that when uncle Steve tells you to spend money, you spend it.
I've noticed that free software I'd like to install on my girlfriend's iMac G5 has started dropping support for OS 10.4, so I'll probably get the upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060770</id>
	<title>exorcise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265646420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>excise</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>excise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>excise</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061722</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Enahs</author>
	<datestamp>1265651220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have an Intel Mac, you can get Snow Leopard for around $30.  If you're like us at this office and stuck with PPC for whatever reason, you may need to use Safari now.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>The most underreported thing is that the Mozilla team has actually been pretty nice about keeping Tiger from being obsoleted.  A lot of the software we use here stopped supporting Tiger within a couple of months of Panther's release.  If you wonder if I lose any sleep over all this outdated software running on production machines...well, I probably should.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have an Intel Mac , you can get Snow Leopard for around $ 30 .
If you 're like us at this office and stuck with PPC for whatever reason , you may need to use Safari now .
: - ( The most underreported thing is that the Mozilla team has actually been pretty nice about keeping Tiger from being obsoleted .
A lot of the software we use here stopped supporting Tiger within a couple of months of Panther 's release .
If you wonder if I lose any sleep over all this outdated software running on production machines...well , I probably should .
: - &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have an Intel Mac, you can get Snow Leopard for around $30.
If you're like us at this office and stuck with PPC for whatever reason, you may need to use Safari now.
:-(The most underreported thing is that the Mozilla team has actually been pretty nice about keeping Tiger from being obsoleted.
A lot of the software we use here stopped supporting Tiger within a couple of months of Panther's release.
If you wonder if I lose any sleep over all this outdated software running on production machines...well, I probably should.
:-&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061904</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>Neil Hodges</author>
	<datestamp>1265652120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you can't run 16-bit applications on 64-bit Windows 7, at least according to Wikipedia:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>16-bit Windows (Win16) and DOS applications will not run on x86-64 versions of Windows due to removal of Virtual DOS Machine subsystem (NTVDM).</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you ca n't run 16-bit applications on 64-bit Windows 7 , at least according to Wikipedia : 16-bit Windows ( Win16 ) and DOS applications will not run on x86-64 versions of Windows due to removal of Virtual DOS Machine subsystem ( NTVDM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you can't run 16-bit applications on 64-bit Windows 7, at least according to Wikipedia:16-bit Windows (Win16) and DOS applications will not run on x86-64 versions of Windows due to removal of Virtual DOS Machine subsystem (NTVDM).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061390</id>
	<title>Re:Minor version</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1265649780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We still have a computer running 10.2 hooked up to a microscope.</i> <br> <br>
You gotta love these single-tasking machines. I've still got a machine running DOS 3.1 hooked up to a milk pasteuriser. It "just works" without fail, and I can swap out components (or the whole machine if I have to) within a few minutes if anything starts to look a bit flaky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have a computer running 10.2 hooked up to a microscope .
You got ta love these single-tasking machines .
I 've still got a machine running DOS 3.1 hooked up to a milk pasteuriser .
It " just works " without fail , and I can swap out components ( or the whole machine if I have to ) within a few minutes if anything starts to look a bit flaky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still have a computer running 10.2 hooked up to a microscope.
You gotta love these single-tasking machines.
I've still got a machine running DOS 3.1 hooked up to a milk pasteuriser.
It "just works" without fail, and I can swap out components (or the whole machine if I have to) within a few minutes if anything starts to look a bit flaky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061222</id>
	<title>Re:How can I upgrade?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265649060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's always <a href="http://caminobrowser.org/" title="caminobrowser.org">Camino</a> [caminobrowser.org], which runs more smoothly than Firefox anyway, and has older builds for Mac OS X 10.3 down to 10.1, and <a href="http://www.floodgap.com/software/classilla/" title="floodgap.com">Classilla</a> [floodgap.com] if you're running Mac OS Classic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's always Camino [ caminobrowser.org ] , which runs more smoothly than Firefox anyway , and has older builds for Mac OS X 10.3 down to 10.1 , and Classilla [ floodgap.com ] if you 're running Mac OS Classic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's always Camino [caminobrowser.org], which runs more smoothly than Firefox anyway, and has older builds for Mac OS X 10.3 down to 10.1, and Classilla [floodgap.com] if you're running Mac OS Classic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061802</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1265651520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correction to my post: iStumbler beta now available <a href="http://istumbler.net/downloads/istumbler-99b8.zip" title="istumbler.net" rel="nofollow">here</a> [istumbler.net].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction to my post : iStumbler beta now available here [ istumbler.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction to my post: iStumbler beta now available here [istumbler.net].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31093870</id>
	<title>Re:Good decision.</title>
	<author>Xyde</author>
	<datestamp>1265033820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It runs on that older hardware just fine, it's just the installer won't have anything to do with it. There are a few ways around it; I've had it running on a 400mhz titanium powerbook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It runs on that older hardware just fine , it 's just the installer wo n't have anything to do with it .
There are a few ways around it ; I 've had it running on a 400mhz titanium powerbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It runs on that older hardware just fine, it's just the installer won't have anything to do with it.
There are a few ways around it; I've had it running on a 400mhz titanium powerbook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063900</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1265662140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your friends did not buy 'new' Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008. They shipped with 10.5 at that time, and if not, they'd be eligible for a $10 upgrade disk. Apple brought out Tiger in April 2005. And Leopard came out in October 2007.</p><p>Go with Leopard if you can. You may have your upgrade path ended there, but it will be supported for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your friends did not buy 'new ' Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008 .
They shipped with 10.5 at that time , and if not , they 'd be eligible for a $ 10 upgrade disk .
Apple brought out Tiger in April 2005 .
And Leopard came out in October 2007.Go with Leopard if you can .
You may have your upgrade path ended there , but it will be supported for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your friends did not buy 'new' Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008.
They shipped with 10.5 at that time, and if not, they'd be eligible for a $10 upgrade disk.
Apple brought out Tiger in April 2005.
And Leopard came out in October 2007.Go with Leopard if you can.
You may have your upgrade path ended there, but it will be supported for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061134</id>
	<title>Re:Affecting a small audience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265648580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everyone subscribes to the idea that they MUST purchase the latest and greatest OS for their hardware.  I don't believe that thinking "I'm not going to blow $100 on an upgrade I DON'T NEED or I CAN'T USE" is an esoteric reason at all.  Step out of your reality distortion field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone subscribes to the idea that they MUST purchase the latest and greatest OS for their hardware .
I do n't believe that thinking " I 'm not going to blow $ 100 on an upgrade I DO N'T NEED or I CA N'T USE " is an esoteric reason at all .
Step out of your reality distortion field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone subscribes to the idea that they MUST purchase the latest and greatest OS for their hardware.
I don't believe that thinking "I'm not going to blow $100 on an upgrade I DON'T NEED or I CAN'T USE" is an esoteric reason at all.
Step out of your reality distortion field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065256</id>
	<title>Re:exorcise?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265624640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>excise</p></div>
</blockquote><p>How do you know the old code they were removing wasn't an evil spirit or malign influence?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>excise How do you know the old code they were removing was n't an evil spirit or malign influence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>excise
How do you know the old code they were removing wasn't an evil spirit or malign influence?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060668</id>
	<title>Loose the (almost) dead weight</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1265645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leopard (10.5) was released end of october 2007, 2.5 years ago, and 2.5 years is well enough time to let end-users move on and revision their computing. Everyone knows there are 10.4'ers out there still, and even 10.3'ers (may the Universe and the Great Magnet help them), but dragging excess weight is nothing short of a problem akin to shooting oneself in the foot - just take a look at microsoft and their eternal love for backwards compatibility, and all the hell that comes with it in windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leopard ( 10.5 ) was released end of october 2007 , 2.5 years ago , and 2.5 years is well enough time to let end-users move on and revision their computing .
Everyone knows there are 10.4'ers out there still , and even 10.3'ers ( may the Universe and the Great Magnet help them ) , but dragging excess weight is nothing short of a problem akin to shooting oneself in the foot - just take a look at microsoft and their eternal love for backwards compatibility , and all the hell that comes with it in windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leopard (10.5) was released end of october 2007, 2.5 years ago, and 2.5 years is well enough time to let end-users move on and revision their computing.
Everyone knows there are 10.4'ers out there still, and even 10.3'ers (may the Universe and the Great Magnet help them), but dragging excess weight is nothing short of a problem akin to shooting oneself in the foot - just take a look at microsoft and their eternal love for backwards compatibility, and all the hell that comes with it in windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060930</id>
	<title>Odd...</title>
	<author>MachineShedFred</author>
	<datestamp>1265647560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny that Apple doesn't have any problem writing Safari updates that still work on 10.4...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny that Apple does n't have any problem writing Safari updates that still work on 10.4.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny that Apple doesn't have any problem writing Safari updates that still work on 10.4...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31069678</id>
	<title>First Accenture, now Mozilla?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265707500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think I ever saw any of his ads for Firefox though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I ever saw any of his ads for Firefox though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I ever saw any of his ads for Firefox though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061118</id>
	<title>Welcome To The Upgrade Treadmill</title>
	<author>rsmith-mac</author>
	<datestamp>1265648520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For anyone who has been with Apple since the beginning of Mac OS X, this shouldn't come as a surprise. Mac OS X is on a definite upgrade treadmill: Apple wants to do a major OS update every 2 years and nothing is sacred - they're boldly going forward and they can't find reverse. More to the point, Apple has decided not to put a lot of effort in to supporting legacy operating systems, so they only do feature updates on the current OS, and security updates on the previous OS. In other words, <b>10.4 no longer gets security updates</b> since it's 2 OSes back.</p><p>So to release new software with 10.4 compatibility is a dubious proposition, because you're deploying software on an OS with an ever-increasing number of security vulnerabilities which in turn may impact your product. In this case Moz is better off avoiding 10.4, not only to avoid the dangers of deploying software on a retired OS, but also so that they can focus further development on using the features of the 10.5+ API.</p><p>Welcome to the upgrade treadmill, guys. Not a lot of people like it, but that's the price of admission to Steve's world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For anyone who has been with Apple since the beginning of Mac OS X , this should n't come as a surprise .
Mac OS X is on a definite upgrade treadmill : Apple wants to do a major OS update every 2 years and nothing is sacred - they 're boldly going forward and they ca n't find reverse .
More to the point , Apple has decided not to put a lot of effort in to supporting legacy operating systems , so they only do feature updates on the current OS , and security updates on the previous OS .
In other words , 10.4 no longer gets security updates since it 's 2 OSes back.So to release new software with 10.4 compatibility is a dubious proposition , because you 're deploying software on an OS with an ever-increasing number of security vulnerabilities which in turn may impact your product .
In this case Moz is better off avoiding 10.4 , not only to avoid the dangers of deploying software on a retired OS , but also so that they can focus further development on using the features of the 10.5 + API.Welcome to the upgrade treadmill , guys .
Not a lot of people like it , but that 's the price of admission to Steve 's world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For anyone who has been with Apple since the beginning of Mac OS X, this shouldn't come as a surprise.
Mac OS X is on a definite upgrade treadmill: Apple wants to do a major OS update every 2 years and nothing is sacred - they're boldly going forward and they can't find reverse.
More to the point, Apple has decided not to put a lot of effort in to supporting legacy operating systems, so they only do feature updates on the current OS, and security updates on the previous OS.
In other words, 10.4 no longer gets security updates since it's 2 OSes back.So to release new software with 10.4 compatibility is a dubious proposition, because you're deploying software on an OS with an ever-increasing number of security vulnerabilities which in turn may impact your product.
In this case Moz is better off avoiding 10.4, not only to avoid the dangers of deploying software on a retired OS, but also so that they can focus further development on using the features of the 10.5+ API.Welcome to the upgrade treadmill, guys.
Not a lot of people like it, but that's the price of admission to Steve's world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061314</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1265649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This is far too premature.</i> <br> <br>
Normally I would agree, but since my ageing but still perfectly functional 2.16GHz Core2Duo MacBook is beginning to groan occasionally under the load of Firefox running on Snow Leopard, I am inclined to welcome anything that will speed it up. If all that old code is beginning (as Mozilla says) to affect the integrity of the tree as a whole, then it is <b>definitely</b> time to get rid of it.<br> <br>
I just checked FleaBay, and I didn't have to look far to find copies of Leopard available for $9.00, and of course Snow Leopard is available for not a whole lot more. There is no point whining about not getting security updates on your browser if you aren't keeping your operating system current.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is far too premature .
Normally I would agree , but since my ageing but still perfectly functional 2.16GHz Core2Duo MacBook is beginning to groan occasionally under the load of Firefox running on Snow Leopard , I am inclined to welcome anything that will speed it up .
If all that old code is beginning ( as Mozilla says ) to affect the integrity of the tree as a whole , then it is definitely time to get rid of it .
I just checked FleaBay , and I did n't have to look far to find copies of Leopard available for $ 9.00 , and of course Snow Leopard is available for not a whole lot more .
There is no point whining about not getting security updates on your browser if you are n't keeping your operating system current .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is far too premature.
Normally I would agree, but since my ageing but still perfectly functional 2.16GHz Core2Duo MacBook is beginning to groan occasionally under the load of Firefox running on Snow Leopard, I am inclined to welcome anything that will speed it up.
If all that old code is beginning (as Mozilla says) to affect the integrity of the tree as a whole, then it is definitely time to get rid of it.
I just checked FleaBay, and I didn't have to look far to find copies of Leopard available for $9.00, and of course Snow Leopard is available for not a whole lot more.
There is no point whining about not getting security updates on your browser if you aren't keeping your operating system current.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710</id>
	<title>Minor version</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1265646120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised that so much version specific code is needed to support a minor release of the OS. Why is that?</p><p>We still have a computer running 10.2 hooked up to a microscope.  It still works just fine, and I'm hesitant to upgrade without a real good reason.  It would be really nice to continue to get updates for Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that so much version specific code is needed to support a minor release of the OS .
Why is that ? We still have a computer running 10.2 hooked up to a microscope .
It still works just fine , and I 'm hesitant to upgrade without a real good reason .
It would be really nice to continue to get updates for Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that so much version specific code is needed to support a minor release of the OS.
Why is that?We still have a computer running 10.2 hooked up to a microscope.
It still works just fine, and I'm hesitant to upgrade without a real good reason.
It would be really nice to continue to get updates for Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066340</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>trouser</author>
	<datestamp>1265628900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSX 10.0 - released March 2001. Unsupported since the release of 10.2 in August 2002.<br>Windows XP - released October 2001. Can't buy it in the shops anymore but it's still supported.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_XP#Support\_lifecycle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_XP#Support\_lifecycle</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><i>On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes will be terminated.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX 10.0 - released March 2001 .
Unsupported since the release of 10.2 in August 2002.Windows XP - released October 2001 .
Ca n't buy it in the shops anymore but it 's still supported.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows \ _XP # Support \ _lifecycle [ wikipedia.org ] On April 8 , 2014 , all Windows XP support , including security updates and security-related hotfixes will be terminated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX 10.0 - released March 2001.
Unsupported since the release of 10.2 in August 2002.Windows XP - released October 2001.
Can't buy it in the shops anymore but it's still supported.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_XP#Support\_lifecycle [wikipedia.org]On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes will be terminated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061328</id>
	<title>Re:Minor version</title>
	<author>Internal Modem</author>
	<datestamp>1265649600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox dropped support for 10.3 long ago, not to mention 10.2. You are not running the current version of Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox dropped support for 10.3 long ago , not to mention 10.2 .
You are not running the current version of Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox dropped support for 10.3 long ago, not to mention 10.2.
You are not running the current version of Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061044</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265648160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might look into using Opera, its latest 10-series still supports not only 10.4, but also 10.3. Also has quite good security record and on older machines it is readily apparent how snappy Opera is (don't forget using its built-in adblocker)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might look into using Opera , its latest 10-series still supports not only 10.4 , but also 10.3 .
Also has quite good security record and on older machines it is readily apparent how snappy Opera is ( do n't forget using its built-in adblocker )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might look into using Opera, its latest 10-series still supports not only 10.4, but also 10.3.
Also has quite good security record and on older machines it is readily apparent how snappy Opera is (don't forget using its built-in adblocker)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060896</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>sh00z</author>
	<datestamp>1265647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an actual impacted user, I can attest that Safari 4 is much faster, and far less freeze/crash-prone than Firefox 3.X on a G4/10.4 machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an actual impacted user , I can attest that Safari 4 is much faster , and far less freeze/crash-prone than Firefox 3.X on a G4/10.4 machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an actual impacted user, I can attest that Safari 4 is much faster, and far less freeze/crash-prone than Firefox 3.X on a G4/10.4 machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063932</id>
	<title>Re:Early compared to Windows</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1265662260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially since Windows doesn't support Windows 2000 anymore. No security updates, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially since Windows does n't support Windows 2000 anymore .
No security updates , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially since Windows doesn't support Windows 2000 anymore.
No security updates, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062748</id>
	<title>Re:Minor version</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1265656560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm surprised that so much version specific code is needed to support a minor release of the OS. Why is that?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's explained in the article.  Mozilla would lose things like CoreText, GCC 4.2, out of process plug-ins, and more by supporting Tiger.  Let it be an example to all anti-Apple trolls who claim OS X releases are overpriced little service packs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that so much version specific code is needed to support a minor release of the OS .
Why is that ? It 's explained in the article .
Mozilla would lose things like CoreText , GCC 4.2 , out of process plug-ins , and more by supporting Tiger .
Let it be an example to all anti-Apple trolls who claim OS X releases are overpriced little service packs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that so much version specific code is needed to support a minor release of the OS.
Why is that?It's explained in the article.
Mozilla would lose things like CoreText, GCC 4.2, out of process plug-ins, and more by supporting Tiger.
Let it be an example to all anti-Apple trolls who claim OS X releases are overpriced little service packs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061034</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265648160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Sounds like OS X's API has evolved quite a bit in the last 5 years.</i> <br> <br>
Yeah, but in some ways it seems as if Apple has gone out of its way to break some of them. A case in point is the APIs pertaining to their AirPort cards, which with the introduction of Slow Leopard have broken <a href="http://www.istumbler.net/" title="istumbler.net" rel="nofollow">iStumbler</a> [istumbler.net] and every program like it that I know of, apart from the fairly limited native text-mode <tt>airport</tt> utility.<br> <br>
Admittedly, the developers of iStumbler have been seriously dragging their heels over updating their software. Apparently there is a beta available, but my request for a copy went unanswered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like OS X 's API has evolved quite a bit in the last 5 years .
Yeah , but in some ways it seems as if Apple has gone out of its way to break some of them .
A case in point is the APIs pertaining to their AirPort cards , which with the introduction of Slow Leopard have broken iStumbler [ istumbler.net ] and every program like it that I know of , apart from the fairly limited native text-mode airport utility .
Admittedly , the developers of iStumbler have been seriously dragging their heels over updating their software .
Apparently there is a beta available , but my request for a copy went unanswered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like OS X's API has evolved quite a bit in the last 5 years.
Yeah, but in some ways it seems as if Apple has gone out of its way to break some of them.
A case in point is the APIs pertaining to their AirPort cards, which with the introduction of Slow Leopard have broken iStumbler [istumbler.net] and every program like it that I know of, apart from the fairly limited native text-mode airport utility.
Admittedly, the developers of iStumbler have been seriously dragging their heels over updating their software.
Apparently there is a beta available, but my request for a copy went unanswered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066864</id>
	<title>Re:Some statistics</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265631360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The information you seek is linked from the article summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The information you seek is linked from the article summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The information you seek is linked from the article summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064574</id>
	<title>Re:Loose the (almost) dead weight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265622000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better think again and look at Microsoft's installed base.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better think again and look at Microsoft 's installed base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better think again and look at Microsoft's installed base.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062648</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1265656140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?</p></div><p>It's not a question of being "hard" or not - maintaining another platform/configuration simply takes time and resources.  As I understand, on top of that there was a big deprecation of API calls moving from 10.4, so they also need specialized people that know their way around and systems that have 10.4 installed ready for testing.</p><p>When a user reports a problem on 10.4, someone has to spend a day trying to reproduce it and find its way through old code<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Build breaks because of old forgotten code made for 10.4<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>At this point it's purely a business decision - keeping support for 10.4 adds the need for X extra developers and delays releases for Y days.  Is it worth the cost?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers ? It 's not a question of being " hard " or not - maintaining another platform/configuration simply takes time and resources .
As I understand , on top of that there was a big deprecation of API calls moving from 10.4 , so they also need specialized people that know their way around and systems that have 10.4 installed ready for testing.When a user reports a problem on 10.4 , someone has to spend a day trying to reproduce it and find its way through old code ...Build breaks because of old forgotten code made for 10.4 ...At this point it 's purely a business decision - keeping support for 10.4 adds the need for X extra developers and delays releases for Y days .
Is it worth the cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?It's not a question of being "hard" or not - maintaining another platform/configuration simply takes time and resources.
As I understand, on top of that there was a big deprecation of API calls moving from 10.4, so they also need specialized people that know their way around and systems that have 10.4 installed ready for testing.When a user reports a problem on 10.4, someone has to spend a day trying to reproduce it and find its way through old code ...Build breaks because of old forgotten code made for 10.4 ...At this point it's purely a business decision - keeping support for 10.4 adds the need for X extra developers and delays releases for Y days.
Is it worth the cost?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062014</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1265652720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The fact that they'd drop support for an OS version thats only 5 years old, when Firefox quite obviously still works on 10 year old Windows 2000, is sort of surprising.</i>
<p>
Windows tends to go through very large but very backwards compatible updates every 5 years or so (less from Vista to W7), whereas OS X has a shorter update cycle and doesn't appear to care half as much about BC.
</p><p>
In terms of programming W2K is little different from Windows 7 especially for a C++ app which is hitting Win32 APIs. Stuff around the periphery might change and there may be performance implications if DirectX is used for some operations. Probably the biggest effort is keeping the chrome up to date because W2K doesn't have uxtheme.dll (the Windows theme engine) so the something somewhere has to work around this. I can see that being reason enough to dump W2K in as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they 'd drop support for an OS version thats only 5 years old , when Firefox quite obviously still works on 10 year old Windows 2000 , is sort of surprising .
Windows tends to go through very large but very backwards compatible updates every 5 years or so ( less from Vista to W7 ) , whereas OS X has a shorter update cycle and does n't appear to care half as much about BC .
In terms of programming W2K is little different from Windows 7 especially for a C + + app which is hitting Win32 APIs .
Stuff around the periphery might change and there may be performance implications if DirectX is used for some operations .
Probably the biggest effort is keeping the chrome up to date because W2K does n't have uxtheme.dll ( the Windows theme engine ) so the something somewhere has to work around this .
I can see that being reason enough to dump W2K in as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they'd drop support for an OS version thats only 5 years old, when Firefox quite obviously still works on 10 year old Windows 2000, is sort of surprising.
Windows tends to go through very large but very backwards compatible updates every 5 years or so (less from Vista to W7), whereas OS X has a shorter update cycle and doesn't appear to care half as much about BC.
In terms of programming W2K is little different from Windows 7 especially for a C++ app which is hitting Win32 APIs.
Stuff around the periphery might change and there may be performance implications if DirectX is used for some operations.
Probably the biggest effort is keeping the chrome up to date because W2K doesn't have uxtheme.dll (the Windows theme engine) so the something somewhere has to work around this.
I can see that being reason enough to dump W2K in as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065086</id>
	<title>Re:I blame apple</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1265624040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple supports it. Mozilla doesn't.</p><p>Use Safari on 10.4 if you want to use the same browser that they are shipping with 10.6 - it is fully up to date. They also released a security patch in September 2009.</p><p>Mozilla's handwaving is somewhat premature for an OS that was being shipped new only 3 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple supports it .
Mozilla does n't.Use Safari on 10.4 if you want to use the same browser that they are shipping with 10.6 - it is fully up to date .
They also released a security patch in September 2009.Mozilla 's handwaving is somewhat premature for an OS that was being shipped new only 3 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple supports it.
Mozilla doesn't.Use Safari on 10.4 if you want to use the same browser that they are shipping with 10.6 - it is fully up to date.
They also released a security patch in September 2009.Mozilla's handwaving is somewhat premature for an OS that was being shipped new only 3 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065066</id>
	<title>Re:This, basically, is why I left Mac</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1265623980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Apple still ships its current version of Safari on 10.4! And last patched it with a security update in September 2009. This is entirely Mozilla's decision - the code and APIs still exist. You can still target builds for your project for 10.4 if you like, but Apple included new, faster APIs for text rendering in 10.5. You can leave in the code to use the old stuff in 10.4, which Apple have obviously done with Safari. It's just more work to maintain it, and adds problems with new features in your app.</p><p>What did you want them to do? Backport CoreText to 10.4, or just not improve the APIs they were using?  According to the wiki, it looks like CpreText was a private API in 10.4, so I guess they could officially make it a public API as far back as that, although it may have undergone revision between 10.4 and its official release as public in 10.5. Who knows.</p><p>Oh I know, I know, this is all Apple's fault for.... I don't know, something to do with the iPad being DoA due to not having a stylus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Apple still ships its current version of Safari on 10.4 !
And last patched it with a security update in September 2009 .
This is entirely Mozilla 's decision - the code and APIs still exist .
You can still target builds for your project for 10.4 if you like , but Apple included new , faster APIs for text rendering in 10.5 .
You can leave in the code to use the old stuff in 10.4 , which Apple have obviously done with Safari .
It 's just more work to maintain it , and adds problems with new features in your app.What did you want them to do ?
Backport CoreText to 10.4 , or just not improve the APIs they were using ?
According to the wiki , it looks like CpreText was a private API in 10.4 , so I guess they could officially make it a public API as far back as that , although it may have undergone revision between 10.4 and its official release as public in 10.5 .
Who knows.Oh I know , I know , this is all Apple 's fault for.... I do n't know , something to do with the iPad being DoA due to not having a stylus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Apple still ships its current version of Safari on 10.4!
And last patched it with a security update in September 2009.
This is entirely Mozilla's decision - the code and APIs still exist.
You can still target builds for your project for 10.4 if you like, but Apple included new, faster APIs for text rendering in 10.5.
You can leave in the code to use the old stuff in 10.4, which Apple have obviously done with Safari.
It's just more work to maintain it, and adds problems with new features in your app.What did you want them to do?
Backport CoreText to 10.4, or just not improve the APIs they were using?
According to the wiki, it looks like CpreText was a private API in 10.4, so I guess they could officially make it a public API as far back as that, although it may have undergone revision between 10.4 and its official release as public in 10.5.
Who knows.Oh I know, I know, this is all Apple's fault for.... I don't know, something to do with the iPad being DoA due to not having a stylus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061524</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1265650380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome has required Mac OS X 10.5 on an Intel processor as a minimum since the beginning. I still remember people complaining about it in this blog post (despite the fact that it was a software still in *alpha* back then):
<a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2009/06/danger-mac-and-linux-builds-available.html" title="chromium.org" rel="nofollow">http://blog.chromium.org/2009/06/danger-mac-and-linux-builds-available.html</a> [chromium.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome has required Mac OS X 10.5 on an Intel processor as a minimum since the beginning .
I still remember people complaining about it in this blog post ( despite the fact that it was a software still in * alpha * back then ) : http : //blog.chromium.org/2009/06/danger-mac-and-linux-builds-available.html [ chromium.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome has required Mac OS X 10.5 on an Intel processor as a minimum since the beginning.
I still remember people complaining about it in this blog post (despite the fact that it was a software still in *alpha* back then):
http://blog.chromium.org/2009/06/danger-mac-and-linux-builds-available.html [chromium.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31082762</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>danielsfca2</author>
	<datestamp>1265055720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008</p></div><p>Not bloody likely, since Leopard came out in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac\_OS\_X\_Leopard" title="wikipedia.org">October 2007</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Well, if you must have the latest possible Firefox while keeping the oldest possible hardware, you could just run Linux on your 6-year-old iBook. Nobody's putting a gun to your head to make you use a certain OS. But I can't imagine it's much fun to browse the web with it. I would assume flash slaughters it. But then again you're using Firefox so maybe if you tricked it out with all kinds of ad and flash blocking it would be useful-ish. As long as you stayed away from too many DOM-manipulating fancy webapps.</p><p>I have plenty of respect for older computers (I was sad when my little 12" PowerBook G4 finally died last year) but honestly I'd much rather Mozilla spends their resources making new features and improving performance for the 90\% than catering to the 10\% who are too cheap (no offense--i'm just sayin') to buy new hardware (or even OS) more than once per decade. This is the fourth laptop I've had since yours was new, and I'm far, far, far from rich. I find that keeping up to date with hardware improves my experience and helps me get things done faster. YMMV.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008Not bloody likely , since Leopard came out in October 2007 [ wikipedia.org ] .Well , if you must have the latest possible Firefox while keeping the oldest possible hardware , you could just run Linux on your 6-year-old iBook .
Nobody 's putting a gun to your head to make you use a certain OS .
But I ca n't imagine it 's much fun to browse the web with it .
I would assume flash slaughters it .
But then again you 're using Firefox so maybe if you tricked it out with all kinds of ad and flash blocking it would be useful-ish .
As long as you stayed away from too many DOM-manipulating fancy webapps.I have plenty of respect for older computers ( I was sad when my little 12 " PowerBook G4 finally died last year ) but honestly I 'd much rather Mozilla spends their resources making new features and improving performance for the 90 \ % than catering to the 10 \ % who are too cheap ( no offense--i 'm just sayin ' ) to buy new hardware ( or even OS ) more than once per decade .
This is the fourth laptop I 've had since yours was new , and I 'm far , far , far from rich .
I find that keeping up to date with hardware improves my experience and helps me get things done faster .
YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008Not bloody likely, since Leopard came out in October 2007 [wikipedia.org].Well, if you must have the latest possible Firefox while keeping the oldest possible hardware, you could just run Linux on your 6-year-old iBook.
Nobody's putting a gun to your head to make you use a certain OS.
But I can't imagine it's much fun to browse the web with it.
I would assume flash slaughters it.
But then again you're using Firefox so maybe if you tricked it out with all kinds of ad and flash blocking it would be useful-ish.
As long as you stayed away from too many DOM-manipulating fancy webapps.I have plenty of respect for older computers (I was sad when my little 12" PowerBook G4 finally died last year) but honestly I'd much rather Mozilla spends their resources making new features and improving performance for the 90\% than catering to the 10\% who are too cheap (no offense--i'm just sayin') to buy new hardware (or even OS) more than once per decade.
This is the fourth laptop I've had since yours was new, and I'm far, far, far from rich.
I find that keeping up to date with hardware improves my experience and helps me get things done faster.
YMMV.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060666</id>
	<title>Nooo !</title>
	<author>psergiu</author>
	<datestamp>1265645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please no !</p><p>There are a lot of old G3 macs around that can run only Tiger and are perfect as a browsing machine (if you don't want to watch flash videos).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please no ! There are a lot of old G3 macs around that can run only Tiger and are perfect as a browsing machine ( if you do n't want to watch flash videos ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please no !There are a lot of old G3 macs around that can run only Tiger and are perfect as a browsing machine (if you don't want to watch flash videos).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062772</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265656680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft takes backwards compatibility a lot more seriously than Apple does.  Supporting both 10.4 and 10.6 well at the same time is somewhat comparable to supporting both Win98 and Vista at the same time (have to use different text rendering APIs, different graphics APIs, etc, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft takes backwards compatibility a lot more seriously than Apple does .
Supporting both 10.4 and 10.6 well at the same time is somewhat comparable to supporting both Win98 and Vista at the same time ( have to use different text rendering APIs , different graphics APIs , etc , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft takes backwards compatibility a lot more seriously than Apple does.
Supporting both 10.4 and 10.6 well at the same time is somewhat comparable to supporting both Win98 and Vista at the same time (have to use different text rendering APIs, different graphics APIs, etc, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062116</id>
	<title>Alternative solution to marginalization of v10.4</title>
	<author>simoncpu was here</author>
	<datestamp>1265653260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More and more projects are starting to drop support for v10.4.  I don't want to switch to Leopard because Tiger works fine.  I feel that spending my money on an upgrade is just not worth it.  When the time comes that the majority of Mac OS X apps would no longer work on v10.4, I'll just reformat my MacBook and replace its OS with FreeBSD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More and more projects are starting to drop support for v10.4 .
I do n't want to switch to Leopard because Tiger works fine .
I feel that spending my money on an upgrade is just not worth it .
When the time comes that the majority of Mac OS X apps would no longer work on v10.4 , I 'll just reformat my MacBook and replace its OS with FreeBSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More and more projects are starting to drop support for v10.4.
I don't want to switch to Leopard because Tiger works fine.
I feel that spending my money on an upgrade is just not worth it.
When the time comes that the majority of Mac OS X apps would no longer work on v10.4, I'll just reformat my MacBook and replace its OS with FreeBSD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061500</id>
	<title>Re:Affecting a small audience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265650260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My esoteric reason is that I've got a 1GHz AlPB.  A legal copy of 10.5 is very hard to come by, and at the time<br>I was reading that 10.5 was actually slower on PPC hardware (unlike the 10.3 -&gt; 10.4 transition).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My esoteric reason is that I 've got a 1GHz AlPB .
A legal copy of 10.5 is very hard to come by , and at the timeI was reading that 10.5 was actually slower on PPC hardware ( unlike the 10.3 - &gt; 10.4 transition ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My esoteric reason is that I've got a 1GHz AlPB.
A legal copy of 10.5 is very hard to come by, and at the timeI was reading that 10.5 was actually slower on PPC hardware (unlike the 10.3 -&gt; 10.4 transition).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061780</id>
	<title>Re:Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3!</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1265651460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its open source.  You're more than welcome to branch it and maintain a 'security fix only' release for yourself and share that with others.</p><p>The problem is, no one wants to do that.  They'd rather just use the new version since everyone capable of doing that has newer hardware anyway so it doesn't effect them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its open source .
You 're more than welcome to branch it and maintain a 'security fix only ' release for yourself and share that with others.The problem is , no one wants to do that .
They 'd rather just use the new version since everyone capable of doing that has newer hardware anyway so it does n't effect them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its open source.
You're more than welcome to branch it and maintain a 'security fix only' release for yourself and share that with others.The problem is, no one wants to do that.
They'd rather just use the new version since everyone capable of doing that has newer hardware anyway so it doesn't effect them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061066</id>
	<title>Re:Affecting a small audience</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1265648280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're absolutely right. Windows fell into this mire years ago. Most of it comes from their target demographic (businesses) who want to set up machines and then try to keep them in some kind of stasis without doing anything more than installing the most basic security patches. This results in a huge load of out-of-date machines that are incredibly susceptible to malware and bog everyone down, both users and IT personnel.
<br> <br>
The facts are that if you're really that recalcitrant and aren't willing to upgrade, you should accept the consequences. The fault in this, though, doesn't completely lie with the user - it partially lies with Apple, for not providing a clear upgrade path. The trouble is that people like the Firefox developers are now being burdened with support for a ton of older OS versions because of people who refuse to upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right .
Windows fell into this mire years ago .
Most of it comes from their target demographic ( businesses ) who want to set up machines and then try to keep them in some kind of stasis without doing anything more than installing the most basic security patches .
This results in a huge load of out-of-date machines that are incredibly susceptible to malware and bog everyone down , both users and IT personnel .
The facts are that if you 're really that recalcitrant and are n't willing to upgrade , you should accept the consequences .
The fault in this , though , does n't completely lie with the user - it partially lies with Apple , for not providing a clear upgrade path .
The trouble is that people like the Firefox developers are now being burdened with support for a ton of older OS versions because of people who refuse to upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right.
Windows fell into this mire years ago.
Most of it comes from their target demographic (businesses) who want to set up machines and then try to keep them in some kind of stasis without doing anything more than installing the most basic security patches.
This results in a huge load of out-of-date machines that are incredibly susceptible to malware and bog everyone down, both users and IT personnel.
The facts are that if you're really that recalcitrant and aren't willing to upgrade, you should accept the consequences.
The fault in this, though, doesn't completely lie with the user - it partially lies with Apple, for not providing a clear upgrade path.
The trouble is that people like the Firefox developers are now being burdened with support for a ton of older OS versions because of people who refuse to upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061262</id>
	<title>Re:Minor version</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265649180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you already running a 2.x release. 3.0 is not supported on 10.2/10.3.</p><p>10.x releases of OS X are not minor updates.  If in doubt look at <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">Ars Technica's reviews</a> [arstechnica.com] (linked on is for 10.6, it liks to the ones for previous versions of OS X).  Since 10.2 OS X has migrated to 64 bit, introduced Core Image/Data/Video/Audio/Animation, switched from gcc 3.3 (which barely understands C++) to 4.2, introduced FSEvents, introduced Application signing, and process sandboxing.</p><p>I hope they get rid of 10.5 real soon, so they can use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL (perhaps finally making Firefox as fast as Safari and Chrome).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you already running a 2.x release .
3.0 is not supported on 10.2/10.3.10.x releases of OS X are not minor updates .
If in doubt look at Ars Technica 's reviews [ arstechnica.com ] ( linked on is for 10.6 , it liks to the ones for previous versions of OS X ) .
Since 10.2 OS X has migrated to 64 bit , introduced Core Image/Data/Video/Audio/Animation , switched from gcc 3.3 ( which barely understands C + + ) to 4.2 , introduced FSEvents , introduced Application signing , and process sandboxing.I hope they get rid of 10.5 real soon , so they can use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL ( perhaps finally making Firefox as fast as Safari and Chrome ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you already running a 2.x release.
3.0 is not supported on 10.2/10.3.10.x releases of OS X are not minor updates.
If in doubt look at Ars Technica's reviews [arstechnica.com] (linked on is for 10.6, it liks to the ones for previous versions of OS X).
Since 10.2 OS X has migrated to 64 bit, introduced Core Image/Data/Video/Audio/Animation, switched from gcc 3.3 (which barely understands C++) to 4.2, introduced FSEvents, introduced Application signing, and process sandboxing.I hope they get rid of 10.5 real soon, so they can use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL (perhaps finally making Firefox as fast as Safari and Chrome).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061126</id>
	<title>Re:Good decision.</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1265648520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or they could... you know... run safari... or opera...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they could... you know... run safari... or opera.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they could... you know... run safari... or opera...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062150</id>
	<title>How about 10.2.8?</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1265653440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only like seven years old. [grin]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only like seven years old .
[ grin ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only like seven years old.
[grin]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676</id>
	<title>Wait, I don't undersand this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265645880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a Mac person so I don't keep track of every update, but why is it that OSX 10.4, a version which only came out in 2005 according to Wikipedia, has so much code that prevents Mozilla from trivially continuing to maintain compatibility in Firefox? Does it have something to do with the PPC-&gt;Intel switch? The fact that they'd drop support for an OS version thats only 5 years old, when Firefox quite obviously still works on 10 year old Windows 2000, is sort of surprising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a Mac person so I do n't keep track of every update , but why is it that OSX 10.4 , a version which only came out in 2005 according to Wikipedia , has so much code that prevents Mozilla from trivially continuing to maintain compatibility in Firefox ?
Does it have something to do with the PPC- &gt; Intel switch ?
The fact that they 'd drop support for an OS version thats only 5 years old , when Firefox quite obviously still works on 10 year old Windows 2000 , is sort of surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a Mac person so I don't keep track of every update, but why is it that OSX 10.4, a version which only came out in 2005 according to Wikipedia, has so much code that prevents Mozilla from trivially continuing to maintain compatibility in Firefox?
Does it have something to do with the PPC-&gt;Intel switch?
The fact that they'd drop support for an OS version thats only 5 years old, when Firefox quite obviously still works on 10 year old Windows 2000, is sort of surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062992</id>
	<title>Re:Odd...</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265657580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they?  Will Safari 5 (which is the relevant comparison to the next version of Firefox) support 10.4?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they ?
Will Safari 5 ( which is the relevant comparison to the next version of Firefox ) support 10.4 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they?
Will Safari 5 (which is the relevant comparison to the next version of Firefox) support 10.4?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061056</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox already had problems</title>
	<author>Eravau</author>
	<datestamp>1265648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm also running 10.4 and the latest Firefox... but I'm not feeling the pain... even chatting in Facebook. I'm on an Intel Mac Mini, though... so maybe it's a G4 thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also running 10.4 and the latest Firefox... but I 'm not feeling the pain... even chatting in Facebook .
I 'm on an Intel Mac Mini , though... so maybe it 's a G4 thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also running 10.4 and the latest Firefox... but I'm not feeling the pain... even chatting in Facebook.
I'm on an Intel Mac Mini, though... so maybe it's a G4 thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066862</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>ZachPruckowski</author>
	<datestamp>1265631360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget that this is all talking about a end-2010 Firefox release.  Assuming that release is on time (not a safe assumption given Mozilla's history), it's still 18 months before Mozilla drops support for the last Firefox to support 10.4.  That'd be 4 years since Leopard came out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that this is all talking about a end-2010 Firefox release .
Assuming that release is on time ( not a safe assumption given Mozilla 's history ) , it 's still 18 months before Mozilla drops support for the last Firefox to support 10.4 .
That 'd be 4 years since Leopard came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that this is all talking about a end-2010 Firefox release.
Assuming that release is on time (not a safe assumption given Mozilla's history), it's still 18 months before Mozilla drops support for the last Firefox to support 10.4.
That'd be 4 years since Leopard came out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31071020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31081834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31093870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31071442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31082762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31067220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31068630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_151240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063474
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31093870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31081834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31082762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31063378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31071020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060880
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061626
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31071442
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31067220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31068630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31066862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31064454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31062808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31061314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_151240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31060770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_151240.31065256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
