<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_09_1652254</id>
	<title>The Secret Origin of Windows</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268158320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>harrymcc writes <i>"Windows has been so dominant for so long that it's easy to forget <a href="http://technologizer.com/2010/03/08/the-secret-origin-of-windows/">Windows 1.0 was vaporware, mocked both outside and inside of Microsoft</a> &mdash; and that its immediate successors were considered stopgaps until OS/2 was everywhere. Tandy Trower, the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door a quarter century ago, has written a memoir of the experience. (He thought being assigned the much-maligned project was Microsoft's fiendish way of trying to get rid of him.) The story involves such still-significant figures as Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Ray Ozzie, and Nathan Myhrvold; Trower left Microsoft only in November of 2009 after 28 years with the company."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>harrymcc writes " Windows has been so dominant for so long that it 's easy to forget Windows 1.0 was vaporware , mocked both outside and inside of Microsoft    and that its immediate successors were considered stopgaps until OS/2 was everywhere .
Tandy Trower , the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door a quarter century ago , has written a memoir of the experience .
( He thought being assigned the much-maligned project was Microsoft 's fiendish way of trying to get rid of him .
) The story involves such still-significant figures as Bill Gates , Steve Ballmer , Ray Ozzie , and Nathan Myhrvold ; Trower left Microsoft only in November of 2009 after 28 years with the company .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>harrymcc writes "Windows has been so dominant for so long that it's easy to forget Windows 1.0 was vaporware, mocked both outside and inside of Microsoft — and that its immediate successors were considered stopgaps until OS/2 was everywhere.
Tandy Trower, the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door a quarter century ago, has written a memoir of the experience.
(He thought being assigned the much-maligned project was Microsoft's fiendish way of trying to get rid of him.
) The story involves such still-significant figures as Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Ray Ozzie, and Nathan Myhrvold; Trower left Microsoft only in November of 2009 after 28 years with the company.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417940</id>
	<title>Re:I thought the story went something like this:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Gates saw demonstrations from Xerox and wanted to copy what they were doing</p><p>I don't believe that Gates was impressed by Xerox. He was developing Word and Excel for Apple because he was being paid to do that by them. Gates still thought that MS-DOS was all he needed and that Mac was irrelevant. (He also didn't rate the internet, the first edition of 'The Way Ahead' did not mention it at all.)</p><p>But at COMDEX in 1983 he saw a demonstration of DRI's (of CP/M and DR-DOS) GEM graphics interface running on DOS. It was alpha but Gates saw that this was the way that PCs were going to go and, as usual, he needed to run to the front of the movement and wave his 'follow me' flag. So after COMDEX he booked a hotel and announced Windows. He then started it as a project.</p><p>There are references to "Interface Manager" being a precursor and "Windows" was a renaming of this but that is misleading as this was text based.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Gates saw demonstrations from Xerox and wanted to copy what they were doingI do n't believe that Gates was impressed by Xerox .
He was developing Word and Excel for Apple because he was being paid to do that by them .
Gates still thought that MS-DOS was all he needed and that Mac was irrelevant .
( He also did n't rate the internet , the first edition of 'The Way Ahead ' did not mention it at all .
) But at COMDEX in 1983 he saw a demonstration of DRI 's ( of CP/M and DR-DOS ) GEM graphics interface running on DOS .
It was alpha but Gates saw that this was the way that PCs were going to go and , as usual , he needed to run to the front of the movement and wave his 'follow me ' flag .
So after COMDEX he booked a hotel and announced Windows .
He then started it as a project.There are references to " Interface Manager " being a precursor and " Windows " was a renaming of this but that is misleading as this was text based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Gates saw demonstrations from Xerox and wanted to copy what they were doingI don't believe that Gates was impressed by Xerox.
He was developing Word and Excel for Apple because he was being paid to do that by them.
Gates still thought that MS-DOS was all he needed and that Mac was irrelevant.
(He also didn't rate the internet, the first edition of 'The Way Ahead' did not mention it at all.
)But at COMDEX in 1983 he saw a demonstration of DRI's (of CP/M and DR-DOS) GEM graphics interface running on DOS.
It was alpha but Gates saw that this was the way that PCs were going to go and, as usual, he needed to run to the front of the movement and wave his 'follow me' flag.
So after COMDEX he booked a hotel and announced Windows.
He then started it as a project.There are references to "Interface Manager" being a precursor and "Windows" was a renaming of this but that is misleading as this was text based.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418668</id>
	<title>Re:I still have a copy...</title>
	<author>rcamans</author>
	<datestamp>1268127300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I worked on video cards with drivers for Win 0.9 and OS/2 0.9 20 years ago. oh, man...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I worked on video cards with drivers for Win 0.9 and OS/2 0.9 20 years ago .
oh , man.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I worked on video cards with drivers for Win 0.9 and OS/2 0.9 20 years ago.
oh, man...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418316</id>
	<title>http://www.conectatecontuchela.com/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very very important... good information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very very important... good information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very very important... good information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418352</id>
	<title>Re:Ah The Good Ol' Days</title>
	<author>anss123</author>
	<datestamp>1268125980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple's ProDOS. Not much more than a file shell, really.</p></div><p>I've heard this "not more than a file shell" statement several times. Checking out windows 1.0 I found it to be not all that different from v.3.0 with the exception of not having "icons" for starting applications and not having overlapping windows.
<br> <br>
If I compare it with Amiga OS 1.0 (which also got released in 1985) I'd dare say Windows compares well enough. Windows had working copy&amp;paste, ran multiple applications (though not preemptively) while having a relatively sane calling convention (slower but allowing for virtual and (later) protected memory to be implemented) and having some device independents (i.e drivers for hardware that could be switched as needed). <br> <br>

The big benefits of Amiga OS and Macintosh hinged a lot on the hardware. MacOS had an big option ROM, for instance, that did way more than the BIOS and helped on load times and such while Amiga programs could impress with stereo audio and 32 color graphics with relatively sophisticated raster effects (Amiga had a blitter, a copper and interrupts on every scan line - at the cost of pretty much tying the OS and software to the hardware). <br> <br>

If all else was equal I think Windows had the better tradeoffs whenever by accident or design. It had "good enough" multitasking, device independence, printer support and working copy&amp;paste, MacOS has working copy&amp;paste, printing, superior fonts and probably a superior file system, AmigaOS had a nice design but had a few major failings like a calling convention that prevented them from implementing protected and virtual memory and Copy &amp; Paste that never worked as well as in Windows and MacOS (it's possible the fault lies more with the apps than the OS though).
<br> <br>
OS/2 is probably a better OS but it never had a chance. Just installing OS/2 was a challenge in itself and there were no apps for it since the dev tools cost a small fortune.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple 's ProDOS .
Not much more than a file shell , really.I 've heard this " not more than a file shell " statement several times .
Checking out windows 1.0 I found it to be not all that different from v.3.0 with the exception of not having " icons " for starting applications and not having overlapping windows .
If I compare it with Amiga OS 1.0 ( which also got released in 1985 ) I 'd dare say Windows compares well enough .
Windows had working copy&amp;paste , ran multiple applications ( though not preemptively ) while having a relatively sane calling convention ( slower but allowing for virtual and ( later ) protected memory to be implemented ) and having some device independents ( i.e drivers for hardware that could be switched as needed ) .
The big benefits of Amiga OS and Macintosh hinged a lot on the hardware .
MacOS had an big option ROM , for instance , that did way more than the BIOS and helped on load times and such while Amiga programs could impress with stereo audio and 32 color graphics with relatively sophisticated raster effects ( Amiga had a blitter , a copper and interrupts on every scan line - at the cost of pretty much tying the OS and software to the hardware ) .
If all else was equal I think Windows had the better tradeoffs whenever by accident or design .
It had " good enough " multitasking , device independence , printer support and working copy&amp;paste , MacOS has working copy&amp;paste , printing , superior fonts and probably a superior file system , AmigaOS had a nice design but had a few major failings like a calling convention that prevented them from implementing protected and virtual memory and Copy &amp; Paste that never worked as well as in Windows and MacOS ( it 's possible the fault lies more with the apps than the OS though ) .
OS/2 is probably a better OS but it never had a chance .
Just installing OS/2 was a challenge in itself and there were no apps for it since the dev tools cost a small fortune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple's ProDOS.
Not much more than a file shell, really.I've heard this "not more than a file shell" statement several times.
Checking out windows 1.0 I found it to be not all that different from v.3.0 with the exception of not having "icons" for starting applications and not having overlapping windows.
If I compare it with Amiga OS 1.0 (which also got released in 1985) I'd dare say Windows compares well enough.
Windows had working copy&amp;paste, ran multiple applications (though not preemptively) while having a relatively sane calling convention (slower but allowing for virtual and (later) protected memory to be implemented) and having some device independents (i.e drivers for hardware that could be switched as needed).
The big benefits of Amiga OS and Macintosh hinged a lot on the hardware.
MacOS had an big option ROM, for instance, that did way more than the BIOS and helped on load times and such while Amiga programs could impress with stereo audio and 32 color graphics with relatively sophisticated raster effects (Amiga had a blitter, a copper and interrupts on every scan line - at the cost of pretty much tying the OS and software to the hardware).
If all else was equal I think Windows had the better tradeoffs whenever by accident or design.
It had "good enough" multitasking, device independence, printer support and working copy&amp;paste, MacOS has working copy&amp;paste, printing, superior fonts and probably a superior file system, AmigaOS had a nice design but had a few major failings like a calling convention that prevented them from implementing protected and virtual memory and Copy &amp; Paste that never worked as well as in Windows and MacOS (it's possible the fault lies more with the apps than the OS though).
OS/2 is probably a better OS but it never had a chance.
Just installing OS/2 was a challenge in itself and there were no apps for it since the dev tools cost a small fortune.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418938</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1268128380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Especially because back then, you still needed MS-DOS to run underneath Windows.</p></div><p>I remember this. I used to create a file called <em>c:\win.bat</em> with the following content:<br><tt><br>@echo off<br>echo This program requires Microsoft Windows<br></tt><br>On booting the machine it would actually run that BAT file instead of the Windows executable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially because back then , you still needed MS-DOS to run underneath Windows.I remember this .
I used to create a file called c : \ win.bat with the following content : @ echo offecho This program requires Microsoft WindowsOn booting the machine it would actually run that BAT file instead of the Windows executable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially because back then, you still needed MS-DOS to run underneath Windows.I remember this.
I used to create a file called c:\win.bat with the following content:@echo offecho This program requires Microsoft WindowsOn booting the machine it would actually run that BAT file instead of the Windows executable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421228</id>
	<title>Could have done a much better job...?</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1268139780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA: <i> To me, the allegation </i>[that Windows copied the Macintosh "look and feel"]<i> was almost insulting. If I wanted to copy the Macintosh, I could have done a much better job.</i> <br> <br>

So by NOT copying the Mac it was the half-assed travesty that it was, instead of something much better that Apple really might have had a case about? I'm not sure he really meant to say that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : To me , the allegation [ that Windows copied the Macintosh " look and feel " ] was almost insulting .
If I wanted to copy the Macintosh , I could have done a much better job .
So by NOT copying the Mac it was the half-assed travesty that it was , instead of something much better that Apple really might have had a case about ?
I 'm not sure he really meant to say that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:  To me, the allegation [that Windows copied the Macintosh "look and feel"] was almost insulting.
If I wanted to copy the Macintosh, I could have done a much better job.
So by NOT copying the Mac it was the half-assed travesty that it was, instead of something much better that Apple really might have had a case about?
I'm not sure he really meant to say that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31423176</id>
	<title>OS2</title>
	<author>ps2os2</author>
	<datestamp>1268157840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I loved OS/2 the only issue I had ever with it was that there were still so many windows restriction in the windows environment.<br>I guess I can only blame MS for writing such bad code to begin with.<br>Every limitation I ran into with windows applications had no such issue in OS2.<br>Take the simple Cut &amp; Paste size limitation of windows (IIRC it was around 32K). I constantly bumped up against the limitation. The same couldn't be said about OS2. I used WP(Word Perfect) under OS2 and it just plain worked. Never a crash nor any other OS2 application ever crashed.</p><p>OS2 = work<br>windows(take you flavor) = crippled</p><p>IBM really screwed the developers by dropping it and I have not forgiven them since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved OS/2 the only issue I had ever with it was that there were still so many windows restriction in the windows environment.I guess I can only blame MS for writing such bad code to begin with.Every limitation I ran into with windows applications had no such issue in OS2.Take the simple Cut &amp; Paste size limitation of windows ( IIRC it was around 32K ) .
I constantly bumped up against the limitation .
The same could n't be said about OS2 .
I used WP ( Word Perfect ) under OS2 and it just plain worked .
Never a crash nor any other OS2 application ever crashed.OS2 = workwindows ( take you flavor ) = crippledIBM really screwed the developers by dropping it and I have not forgiven them since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved OS/2 the only issue I had ever with it was that there were still so many windows restriction in the windows environment.I guess I can only blame MS for writing such bad code to begin with.Every limitation I ran into with windows applications had no such issue in OS2.Take the simple Cut &amp; Paste size limitation of windows (IIRC it was around 32K).
I constantly bumped up against the limitation.
The same couldn't be said about OS2.
I used WP(Word Perfect) under OS2 and it just plain worked.
Never a crash nor any other OS2 application ever crashed.OS2 = workwindows(take you flavor) = crippledIBM really screwed the developers by dropping it and I have not forgiven them since.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417144</id>
	<title>announcing windows was vaporware</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1268164080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the Mac came out, Bill said they were working on a graphical interface.  Barely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Mac came out , Bill said they were working on a graphical interface .
Barely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Mac came out, Bill said they were working on a graphical interface.
Barely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417294</id>
	<title>I thought the story went something like this:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268164800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the story was something like this:</p><p>Gates saw demonstrations from Xerox and wanted to copy what they were doing. He was also stealing some concepts from Apple. He asked IBM to bank-roll him, promising to develop OS/2 for IBM as the operating system to end all operating systems.</p><p>Secretly, they were working on Windows, while also semi-sabotaging OS/2. So they were basically defrauding IBM of money to fund Windows production, which didn't really turn into much of a real product until Windows 3.1.</p><p>Is there some other secrets to the origin story I'm missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the story was something like this : Gates saw demonstrations from Xerox and wanted to copy what they were doing .
He was also stealing some concepts from Apple .
He asked IBM to bank-roll him , promising to develop OS/2 for IBM as the operating system to end all operating systems.Secretly , they were working on Windows , while also semi-sabotaging OS/2 .
So they were basically defrauding IBM of money to fund Windows production , which did n't really turn into much of a real product until Windows 3.1.Is there some other secrets to the origin story I 'm missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the story was something like this:Gates saw demonstrations from Xerox and wanted to copy what they were doing.
He was also stealing some concepts from Apple.
He asked IBM to bank-roll him, promising to develop OS/2 for IBM as the operating system to end all operating systems.Secretly, they were working on Windows, while also semi-sabotaging OS/2.
So they were basically defrauding IBM of money to fund Windows production, which didn't really turn into much of a real product until Windows 3.1.Is there some other secrets to the origin story I'm missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31423088</id>
	<title>Re:Oi woz there</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268156640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.</p></div><p>If only it had, a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided. Windows 95 was the first version that seemed like it was trying to do something for the user rather than to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.If only it had , a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided .
Windows 95 was the first version that seemed like it was trying to do something for the user rather than to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.If only it had, a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided.
Windows 95 was the first version that seemed like it was trying to do something for the user rather than to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417896</id>
	<title>My run-ins with Windoze</title>
	<author>indian\_rediff</author>
	<datestamp>1268167440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was 1987. I was in Texas, working for a bank (as a consultant, installing some mainframe software for them), when the VP dropped by and asked whether I would want to see something new. He had an old guy pounding away at a new fangled thing called a personal computer (for them). I was more than happy to indulge him.</p><p>Windows 2.0 was it! The key things that I remember doing are that the PC I used had no mouse. Since I was a mainframe type, everything was keyboard based in my prior life. I assumed that there must be special keystrokes that I needed to use to play with the new computer.</p><p>Over a period of a few days, I stumbled on the keyboard shortcuts and familiarised myself completely with all of them. The amazing thing is that most of them are still relevant today - and my kids bug me to show them how to switch between windows quickly! In fact, I am amazed at how few people know many of the short cuts and the various ways in which you can play with computer without using the mouse! But I digress.</p><p>Next week the VP dropped by again and asked whether I could install a game for him. I went ahead and installed the floppies (and they were real 5.25" floppies - not diskettes). And I started playing my first graphical game - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure\_Suit\_Larry\_in\_the\_Land\_of\_the\_Lounge\_Lizards" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards</a> [wikipedia.org]! Long story short - it was a fun few days while we indulged the old man (the Veep) and saw the various aspects of the game.</p><p>I remember wondering about the keyboard shortcuts and wishing they were not so complicated.</p><p>My next encounter with PCs was not until a couple of years later - Windows 3.1, a mouse and Quicken! And boy did I have a learning curve with the mouse! At first I thought the mouse was optional. It took me a good year or so to start using it without having to think about it.</p><p>Good times<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... until the Linux revolution began.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was 1987 .
I was in Texas , working for a bank ( as a consultant , installing some mainframe software for them ) , when the VP dropped by and asked whether I would want to see something new .
He had an old guy pounding away at a new fangled thing called a personal computer ( for them ) .
I was more than happy to indulge him.Windows 2.0 was it !
The key things that I remember doing are that the PC I used had no mouse .
Since I was a mainframe type , everything was keyboard based in my prior life .
I assumed that there must be special keystrokes that I needed to use to play with the new computer.Over a period of a few days , I stumbled on the keyboard shortcuts and familiarised myself completely with all of them .
The amazing thing is that most of them are still relevant today - and my kids bug me to show them how to switch between windows quickly !
In fact , I am amazed at how few people know many of the short cuts and the various ways in which you can play with computer without using the mouse !
But I digress.Next week the VP dropped by again and asked whether I could install a game for him .
I went ahead and installed the floppies ( and they were real 5.25 " floppies - not diskettes ) .
And I started playing my first graphical game - Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards [ wikipedia.org ] !
Long story short - it was a fun few days while we indulged the old man ( the Veep ) and saw the various aspects of the game.I remember wondering about the keyboard shortcuts and wishing they were not so complicated.My next encounter with PCs was not until a couple of years later - Windows 3.1 , a mouse and Quicken !
And boy did I have a learning curve with the mouse !
At first I thought the mouse was optional .
It took me a good year or so to start using it without having to think about it.Good times ... until the Linux revolution began .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was 1987.
I was in Texas, working for a bank (as a consultant, installing some mainframe software for them), when the VP dropped by and asked whether I would want to see something new.
He had an old guy pounding away at a new fangled thing called a personal computer (for them).
I was more than happy to indulge him.Windows 2.0 was it!
The key things that I remember doing are that the PC I used had no mouse.
Since I was a mainframe type, everything was keyboard based in my prior life.
I assumed that there must be special keystrokes that I needed to use to play with the new computer.Over a period of a few days, I stumbled on the keyboard shortcuts and familiarised myself completely with all of them.
The amazing thing is that most of them are still relevant today - and my kids bug me to show them how to switch between windows quickly!
In fact, I am amazed at how few people know many of the short cuts and the various ways in which you can play with computer without using the mouse!
But I digress.Next week the VP dropped by again and asked whether I could install a game for him.
I went ahead and installed the floppies (and they were real 5.25" floppies - not diskettes).
And I started playing my first graphical game - Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards [wikipedia.org]!
Long story short - it was a fun few days while we indulged the old man (the Veep) and saw the various aspects of the game.I remember wondering about the keyboard shortcuts and wishing they were not so complicated.My next encounter with PCs was not until a couple of years later - Windows 3.1, a mouse and Quicken!
And boy did I have a learning curve with the mouse!
At first I thought the mouse was optional.
It took me a good year or so to start using it without having to think about it.Good times ... until the Linux revolution began.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417134</id>
	<title>I never could get it load on my Timex-Sinclair</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1268164080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I never could get it to load on my Timex Sinclair, but then, nobody needs more than 640k of RAM, right?</p><p>Somewhere I have an old Win 1.0 copy, probably next to my old CP/M floppies and my Apple II+ (dual DD, 172k RAM (128k board used to load the floppy into RAM to speed up access 1000 times)).</p><p>We used to have fun figuring out which CP/M commands Bill stole when he "wrote" it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I never could get it to load on my Timex Sinclair , but then , nobody needs more than 640k of RAM , right ? Somewhere I have an old Win 1.0 copy , probably next to my old CP/M floppies and my Apple II + ( dual DD , 172k RAM ( 128k board used to load the floppy into RAM to speed up access 1000 times ) ) .We used to have fun figuring out which CP/M commands Bill stole when he " wrote " it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I never could get it to load on my Timex Sinclair, but then, nobody needs more than 640k of RAM, right?Somewhere I have an old Win 1.0 copy, probably next to my old CP/M floppies and my Apple II+ (dual DD, 172k RAM (128k board used to load the floppy into RAM to speed up access 1000 times)).We used to have fun figuring out which CP/M commands Bill stole when he "wrote" it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419012</id>
	<title>Fun to run Windows 3.0 or earlier in Win95+ shell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268128800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is fun is to get a copy of Windows 3.0 or earlier that will run in "real mode" (if you don't know what that is, grab a copy of the long-since-out-of-print PC Intern book as a PDF on the Internet that's floating around filestube.com etc - this is an excellent book that documents all this stuff I've long since forgotten) and bring it up in Windows 95 or later that runs full 386 preemptive multi-tasking. Each MS-DOS box in Win95+ is a full real-mode MS-DOS virtual machine, so earlier Windows versions which run in "real mode" will come up.</p><p>If you think this is fun, you can graduate to running Java in the POSIX subsystem on MVS running in Hercules or some other emulator on a x86 machine. Extra credit if the x86 instance is running in a virtual machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is fun is to get a copy of Windows 3.0 or earlier that will run in " real mode " ( if you do n't know what that is , grab a copy of the long-since-out-of-print PC Intern book as a PDF on the Internet that 's floating around filestube.com etc - this is an excellent book that documents all this stuff I 've long since forgotten ) and bring it up in Windows 95 or later that runs full 386 preemptive multi-tasking .
Each MS-DOS box in Win95 + is a full real-mode MS-DOS virtual machine , so earlier Windows versions which run in " real mode " will come up.If you think this is fun , you can graduate to running Java in the POSIX subsystem on MVS running in Hercules or some other emulator on a x86 machine .
Extra credit if the x86 instance is running in a virtual machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is fun is to get a copy of Windows 3.0 or earlier that will run in "real mode" (if you don't know what that is, grab a copy of the long-since-out-of-print PC Intern book as a PDF on the Internet that's floating around filestube.com etc - this is an excellent book that documents all this stuff I've long since forgotten) and bring it up in Windows 95 or later that runs full 386 preemptive multi-tasking.
Each MS-DOS box in Win95+ is a full real-mode MS-DOS virtual machine, so earlier Windows versions which run in "real mode" will come up.If you think this is fun, you can graduate to running Java in the POSIX subsystem on MVS running in Hercules or some other emulator on a x86 machine.
Extra credit if the x86 instance is running in a virtual machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419480</id>
	<title>Shoulda been Xenix</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1268130720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back during the DOS 2.0 days, Microsoft intended for Xenix to be the successor to DOS.  And the worst of Xenix was still preferable to the best of Windows.</p><p>
&nbsp; Microsoft had several opportunities to ubiquitize a quality operating system, irrespective of their horrific business practices.  They could have built their next-gen OS on top of Xenix.  They could have finished the OS/2 project instead of stabbing IBM in the back and doing Windows on top of DOS.  They could have even completed Dave Cutler's vision for Windows NT instead of MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE and top-loading all of their crap into the Win32 layer instead of building around the NT microkernel.</p><p>
&nbsp; They could have done any of the above, and still practiced their bullshit monopolistic business practices, and they could have still taken over the market.  In fact, if they had built Presentation Manager on top of Xenix, it's entirely possible that Linux would not exist today, and the X Window System would never have evolved past the days of TWM and Athena Widgets because all the unixheads would have happily moved to the commodity operating system.</p><p>
&nbsp; But no.  Aside from being monopolistic bullies in the marketplace, they also consistently deliver really bad products.  There is a reason Linux has already overtaken Windows in the enterprise computing market, and has denied them a monopoly in this area.  People who run back end data center applications don't want an operating system that has a GUI intertwined with the bottom layers of<br>the OS.  They don't want mouse clicks in the same event queue as disk and network I/O.  Windows is a bullshit design and it will never be adequate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back during the DOS 2.0 days , Microsoft intended for Xenix to be the successor to DOS .
And the worst of Xenix was still preferable to the best of Windows .
  Microsoft had several opportunities to ubiquitize a quality operating system , irrespective of their horrific business practices .
They could have built their next-gen OS on top of Xenix .
They could have finished the OS/2 project instead of stabbing IBM in the back and doing Windows on top of DOS .
They could have even completed Dave Cutler 's vision for Windows NT instead of MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE and top-loading all of their crap into the Win32 layer instead of building around the NT microkernel .
  They could have done any of the above , and still practiced their bullshit monopolistic business practices , and they could have still taken over the market .
In fact , if they had built Presentation Manager on top of Xenix , it 's entirely possible that Linux would not exist today , and the X Window System would never have evolved past the days of TWM and Athena Widgets because all the unixheads would have happily moved to the commodity operating system .
  But no .
Aside from being monopolistic bullies in the marketplace , they also consistently deliver really bad products .
There is a reason Linux has already overtaken Windows in the enterprise computing market , and has denied them a monopoly in this area .
People who run back end data center applications do n't want an operating system that has a GUI intertwined with the bottom layers ofthe OS .
They do n't want mouse clicks in the same event queue as disk and network I/O .
Windows is a bullshit design and it will never be adequate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back during the DOS 2.0 days, Microsoft intended for Xenix to be the successor to DOS.
And the worst of Xenix was still preferable to the best of Windows.
  Microsoft had several opportunities to ubiquitize a quality operating system, irrespective of their horrific business practices.
They could have built their next-gen OS on top of Xenix.
They could have finished the OS/2 project instead of stabbing IBM in the back and doing Windows on top of DOS.
They could have even completed Dave Cutler's vision for Windows NT instead of MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE and top-loading all of their crap into the Win32 layer instead of building around the NT microkernel.
  They could have done any of the above, and still practiced their bullshit monopolistic business practices, and they could have still taken over the market.
In fact, if they had built Presentation Manager on top of Xenix, it's entirely possible that Linux would not exist today, and the X Window System would never have evolved past the days of TWM and Athena Widgets because all the unixheads would have happily moved to the commodity operating system.
  But no.
Aside from being monopolistic bullies in the marketplace, they also consistently deliver really bad products.
There is a reason Linux has already overtaken Windows in the enterprise computing market, and has denied them a monopoly in this area.
People who run back end data center applications don't want an operating system that has a GUI intertwined with the bottom layers ofthe OS.
They don't want mouse clicks in the same event queue as disk and network I/O.
Windows is a bullshit design and it will never be adequate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417484</id>
	<title>Re:I still have a copy...</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1268165580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still have my copy of 1.03 on 360K floppies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still have my copy of 1.03 on 360K floppies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still have my copy of 1.03 on 360K floppies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417038</id>
	<title>Re:I still have a copy...</title>
	<author>TRS80NT</author>
	<datestamp>1268163600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...<i>better file management programs at the time...</i>"<br>

including from Microsoft itself.  DOSSHELL, included with DOS 4?, 5? (been too long) was a file management and task switching environment that actually was more stable than Windows at the time.  YMMHV (...May Have Varied)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...better file management programs at the time... " including from Microsoft itself .
DOSSHELL , included with DOS 4 ? , 5 ?
( been too long ) was a file management and task switching environment that actually was more stable than Windows at the time .
YMMHV ( ...May Have Varied )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...better file management programs at the time..."

including from Microsoft itself.
DOSSHELL, included with DOS 4?, 5?
(been too long) was a file management and task switching environment that actually was more stable than Windows at the time.
YMMHV (...May Have Varied)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31426596</id>
	<title>Windows 1.0... looong time ago</title>
	<author>KlausBreuer</author>
	<datestamp>1268238540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember, sometime before I entered the university (in '86 - yes, I'm an old fart) I was working as a programmer for a small computer shop called 'Computer Warehouse', selling primarly PCs in Cape Town, South Africa.</p><p>The boss showed me some software which had been delivered together with a sample PC: Windows 1.0. He asked my opinion, as in how useful for us, and if the customers would want it. After fiddling with it for a while (hey, the frames don't even overlap!) I decided that the ground idea is neat, but the fat frames simply eat up to much screen space - this program would never see real usage, looks more like some kind of demo, especially with that low-res text resolution.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...yeah, I've been wrong before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember , sometime before I entered the university ( in '86 - yes , I 'm an old fart ) I was working as a programmer for a small computer shop called 'Computer Warehouse ' , selling primarly PCs in Cape Town , South Africa.The boss showed me some software which had been delivered together with a sample PC : Windows 1.0 .
He asked my opinion , as in how useful for us , and if the customers would want it .
After fiddling with it for a while ( hey , the frames do n't even overlap !
) I decided that the ground idea is neat , but the fat frames simply eat up to much screen space - this program would never see real usage , looks more like some kind of demo , especially with that low-res text resolution .
...yeah , I 've been wrong before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember, sometime before I entered the university (in '86 - yes, I'm an old fart) I was working as a programmer for a small computer shop called 'Computer Warehouse', selling primarly PCs in Cape Town, South Africa.The boss showed me some software which had been delivered together with a sample PC: Windows 1.0.
He asked my opinion, as in how useful for us, and if the customers would want it.
After fiddling with it for a while (hey, the frames don't even overlap!
) I decided that the ground idea is neat, but the fat frames simply eat up to much screen space - this program would never see real usage, looks more like some kind of demo, especially with that low-res text resolution.
...yeah, I've been wrong before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419002</id>
	<title>Vaporware?</title>
	<author>allenfr</author>
	<datestamp>1268128740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose then that we all are vaporware at one point in time, eh. I've got the disks and the manual for version 1.0. Course, i've also got the first 12 issues of Byte magazine too !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose then that we all are vaporware at one point in time , eh .
I 've got the disks and the manual for version 1.0 .
Course , i 've also got the first 12 issues of Byte magazine too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose then that we all are vaporware at one point in time, eh.
I've got the disks and the manual for version 1.0.
Course, i've also got the first 12 issues of Byte magazine too !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418202</id>
	<title>Re:25 years and only 7 versions?</title>
	<author>digitalsolo</author>
	<datestamp>1268125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're making up numbers, really...
<br> <br>
1. 1.0<br>
2. 2.0<br>
3. 3.0/3.1/etc<br>
4. 95<br>
5. 98/NT4<br>
6. Me/2000<br>
7. XP<br>
8. Vista<br>
9. 7<br>
<br>
Hmm...   I kept the home/business release separat there.   Perhaps they only count the ones that didn't totally suck:
<br> <br>
1. 3.11<br>
2. 95C<br>
3. 98 Second Edition<br>
4. NT4<br>
5. 2000<br>
6. XP<br>
7. 7<br>
<br>
FWIW, I had to VERY liberal with doesn't suck on 95C and NT4, in order to make that math line up...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're making up numbers , really.. . 1. 1.0 2 .
2.0 3 .
3.0/3.1/etc 4 .
95 5 .
98/NT4 6 .
Me/2000 7 .
XP 8 .
Vista 9 .
7 Hmm... I kept the home/business release separat there .
Perhaps they only count the ones that did n't totally suck : 1 .
3.11 2 .
95C 3 .
98 Second Edition 4 .
NT4 5 .
2000 6 .
XP 7 .
7 FWIW , I had to VERY liberal with does n't suck on 95C and NT4 , in order to make that math line up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're making up numbers, really...
 
1. 1.0
2.
2.0
3.
3.0/3.1/etc
4.
95
5.
98/NT4
6.
Me/2000
7.
XP
8.
Vista
9.
7

Hmm...   I kept the home/business release separat there.
Perhaps they only count the ones that didn't totally suck:
 
1.
3.11
2.
95C
3.
98 Second Edition
4.
NT4
5.
2000
6.
XP
7.
7

FWIW, I had to VERY liberal with doesn't suck on 95C and NT4, in order to make that math line up...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421568</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268141940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can only compare the pricing of the home version since that's the only version remotely comparable.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why?  Because you say so?  It certainly seems that way.  Silly me, thinking that computers were more business systems than home systems at that point.</p><p>Oh, wait a moment.  They were.  I guess, then, that we should be comparing Enterprise with Windows 1.  I wonder what I should compare XP Home pricing with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only compare the pricing of the home version since that 's the only version remotely comparable.Why ?
Because you say so ?
It certainly seems that way .
Silly me , thinking that computers were more business systems than home systems at that point.Oh , wait a moment .
They were .
I guess , then , that we should be comparing Enterprise with Windows 1 .
I wonder what I should compare XP Home pricing with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only compare the pricing of the home version since that's the only version remotely comparable.Why?
Because you say so?
It certainly seems that way.
Silly me, thinking that computers were more business systems than home systems at that point.Oh, wait a moment.
They were.
I guess, then, that we should be comparing Enterprise with Windows 1.
I wonder what I should compare XP Home pricing with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696</id>
	<title>I still have a copy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268162100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...of Windows 1.02 (or was it 1.12) on 720k, 3.5" floppy. And no, I never used it - DOS was king and there were better file management programs at the time (which is all Win was at that point, iirc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...of Windows 1.02 ( or was it 1.12 ) on 720k , 3.5 " floppy .
And no , I never used it - DOS was king and there were better file management programs at the time ( which is all Win was at that point , iirc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...of Windows 1.02 (or was it 1.12) on 720k, 3.5" floppy.
And no, I never used it - DOS was king and there were better file management programs at the time (which is all Win was at that point, iirc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794</id>
	<title>Different, new types of GUI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268162580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows has been around for 25 years, and the windowing GUI probably longer (I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who took the concept from Xerox). And lets face it, Compiz does not qualify as a new type of GUI. I would love to see a brand new concepts, such as Sun's Looking Glass <a href="https://lg3d.dev.java.net/" title="java.net" rel="nofollow">https://lg3d.dev.java.net/</a> [java.net] (now defunct) (or perhaps even better ideas then that, anyone knows of any?)
But it would be nice to get more innovation in that department.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows has been around for 25 years , and the windowing GUI probably longer ( I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who took the concept from Xerox ) .
And lets face it , Compiz does not qualify as a new type of GUI .
I would love to see a brand new concepts , such as Sun 's Looking Glass https : //lg3d.dev.java.net/ [ java.net ] ( now defunct ) ( or perhaps even better ideas then that , anyone knows of any ?
) But it would be nice to get more innovation in that department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows has been around for 25 years, and the windowing GUI probably longer (I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who took the concept from Xerox).
And lets face it, Compiz does not qualify as a new type of GUI.
I would love to see a brand new concepts, such as Sun's Looking Glass https://lg3d.dev.java.net/ [java.net] (now defunct) (or perhaps even better ideas then that, anyone knows of any?
)
But it would be nice to get more innovation in that department.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418350</id>
	<title>Re:Oi woz there</title>
	<author>need4mospd</author>
	<datestamp>1268125980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I started purchasing Windows with 1.04, and started using it with 3.0.</p><p>I used to list "Windows 1.0 - [current version]" on the skills section of my resume, </p></div><p>Why were you listing Windows 1.0 in your skills section of your resume if you didn't start using Windows til 3.0?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I started purchasing Windows with 1.04 , and started using it with 3.0.I used to list " Windows 1.0 - [ current version ] " on the skills section of my resume , Why were you listing Windows 1.0 in your skills section of your resume if you did n't start using Windows til 3.0 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started purchasing Windows with 1.04, and started using it with 3.0.I used to list "Windows 1.0 - [current version]" on the skills section of my resume, Why were you listing Windows 1.0 in your skills section of your resume if you didn't start using Windows til 3.0?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606</id>
	<title>Mach 10</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1268127000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My stepfather gave me a Christmas present;  A Mach 10 board with a copy 'Windows'.</p><p>He also gave me a game.  Balance of Power.</p><p>Oh</p><p>My</p><p>God</p><p>I frittered away hours, days, weeks, trying to survive without being thrown out of office at the end of the first term.  It took me two weeks to keep from blowing up the world in a half hour of play.</p><p>The game never made it to any other version of Windows, but crap, it was magnificent.  In fact, I may <a href="http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/game.php?id=90" title="homeoftheunderdogs.net">play it again</a> [homeoftheunderdogs.net].</p><p>ps- My rig back then was an XT clone, 4.77/8MHz, 2 720k FDD, 20MB HD (ST228, I think), and CGA.  Wicked decent.  Getting an EGA board and monitor was  a big step.  The Mach board had LIM memory on it.  A whopping 1MB, which cost me well over $500 and three trips back to swap bad chips.  Ah, the memorys...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My stepfather gave me a Christmas present ; A Mach 10 board with a copy 'Windows'.He also gave me a game .
Balance of Power.OhMyGodI frittered away hours , days , weeks , trying to survive without being thrown out of office at the end of the first term .
It took me two weeks to keep from blowing up the world in a half hour of play.The game never made it to any other version of Windows , but crap , it was magnificent .
In fact , I may play it again [ homeoftheunderdogs.net ] .ps- My rig back then was an XT clone , 4.77/8MHz , 2 720k FDD , 20MB HD ( ST228 , I think ) , and CGA .
Wicked decent .
Getting an EGA board and monitor was a big step .
The Mach board had LIM memory on it .
A whopping 1MB , which cost me well over $ 500 and three trips back to swap bad chips .
Ah , the memorys.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My stepfather gave me a Christmas present;  A Mach 10 board with a copy 'Windows'.He also gave me a game.
Balance of Power.OhMyGodI frittered away hours, days, weeks, trying to survive without being thrown out of office at the end of the first term.
It took me two weeks to keep from blowing up the world in a half hour of play.The game never made it to any other version of Windows, but crap, it was magnificent.
In fact, I may play it again [homeoftheunderdogs.net].ps- My rig back then was an XT clone, 4.77/8MHz, 2 720k FDD, 20MB HD (ST228, I think), and CGA.
Wicked decent.
Getting an EGA board and monitor was  a big step.
The Mach board had LIM memory on it.
A whopping 1MB, which cost me well over $500 and three trips back to swap bad chips.
Ah, the memorys...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420376</id>
	<title>A trip down memory lane</title>
	<author>cyberzephyr</author>
	<datestamp>1268134740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I liked the article and feel it's true to the bone.</p><p> There was nothing other than poor grammer that was not correct<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) </p><p> I have used Windows since 2.0 and i thought it was enlightening to say the least. </p><p> We all know windows was a shell back in the day but then it grew up.  Let's all get over it and keep playing with LINUX ok?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked the article and feel it 's true to the bone .
There was nothing other than poor grammer that was not correct : - ) I have used Windows since 2.0 and i thought it was enlightening to say the least .
We all know windows was a shell back in the day but then it grew up .
Let 's all get over it and keep playing with LINUX ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked the article and feel it's true to the bone.
There was nothing other than poor grammer that was not correct :-)  I have used Windows since 2.0 and i thought it was enlightening to say the least.
We all know windows was a shell back in the day but then it grew up.
Let's all get over it and keep playing with LINUX ok?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416940</id>
	<title>Windows 1 was a failure, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268163240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>vaporware it certainly was not.  Did the subby not read the article?  Vaporware means there is speculation or announcement of a product that is never released to the public.  I have a copy of Windows 1 laying around that my father purchased for business use.  We don't have Windows 2.0 or 2.1, and we do have 3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 and 3.11 for workgroups.  I'm thinking 2.0 had a fallout in the business world or something like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>vaporware it certainly was not .
Did the subby not read the article ?
Vaporware means there is speculation or announcement of a product that is never released to the public .
I have a copy of Windows 1 laying around that my father purchased for business use .
We do n't have Windows 2.0 or 2.1 , and we do have 3.0 , 3.1 and 3.11 and 3.11 for workgroups .
I 'm thinking 2.0 had a fallout in the business world or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vaporware it certainly was not.
Did the subby not read the article?
Vaporware means there is speculation or announcement of a product that is never released to the public.
I have a copy of Windows 1 laying around that my father purchased for business use.
We don't have Windows 2.0 or 2.1, and we do have 3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 and 3.11 for workgroups.
I'm thinking 2.0 had a fallout in the business world or something like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268163480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That video was made in what, 1985? And  Windows sold for $99 according to the ad.</p><p>Today, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-7-Home-Premium/dp/B002DHGMK0/ref=sr\_1\_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=software&amp;qid=1268159373&amp;sr=8-3" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Windows 7 (NOT AN UPGRADE)</a> [amazon.com] goes for $178.54 on Amazon and lists for $199. According to the <a href="http://www.minneapolisfed.org/" title="minneapolisfed.org" rel="nofollow">Minneapolis Fed</a> [minneapolisfed.org], $99 in 1985 is worth $200.21 in 2010 - in other Words, inflation adjusted, Microsoft <i>hasn't</i> raised the price of Windows. And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 (compression, file management, image viewers, etc, etc...) Windows has gone <i>down</i> dramatically. Now, they've been labeled a monopoly in court, but they're pricing isn't that of a monopolist. Actually, they've given the consumer a really nice value.</p><p>Now, cue the MS haters who are going to accuse me of being an "apologist" and for being a "revisionist". Whatever. I just think it's an interesting micro economic case study.</p><p>BTW, get a life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That video was made in what , 1985 ?
And Windows sold for $ 99 according to the ad.Today , Windows 7 ( NOT AN UPGRADE ) [ amazon.com ] goes for $ 178.54 on Amazon and lists for $ 199 .
According to the Minneapolis Fed [ minneapolisfed.org ] , $ 99 in 1985 is worth $ 200.21 in 2010 - in other Words , inflation adjusted , Microsoft has n't raised the price of Windows .
And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 ( compression , file management , image viewers , etc , etc... ) Windows has gone down dramatically .
Now , they 've been labeled a monopoly in court , but they 're pricing is n't that of a monopolist .
Actually , they 've given the consumer a really nice value.Now , cue the MS haters who are going to accuse me of being an " apologist " and for being a " revisionist " .
Whatever. I just think it 's an interesting micro economic case study.BTW , get a life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That video was made in what, 1985?
And  Windows sold for $99 according to the ad.Today, Windows 7 (NOT AN UPGRADE) [amazon.com] goes for $178.54 on Amazon and lists for $199.
According to the Minneapolis Fed [minneapolisfed.org], $99 in 1985 is worth $200.21 in 2010 - in other Words, inflation adjusted, Microsoft hasn't raised the price of Windows.
And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 (compression, file management, image viewers, etc, etc...) Windows has gone down dramatically.
Now, they've been labeled a monopoly in court, but they're pricing isn't that of a monopolist.
Actually, they've given the consumer a really nice value.Now, cue the MS haters who are going to accuse me of being an "apologist" and for being a "revisionist".
Whatever. I just think it's an interesting micro economic case study.BTW, get a life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419780</id>
	<title>He had me until I saw this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...promoting good design and usability practice across the product family up to the Vista and Office 2007 releases..."</p><p>Um...yah. The ribbon. Good design and usability. Vista. Another paragon of UI simplicity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...promoting good design and usability practice across the product family up to the Vista and Office 2007 releases... " Um...yah .
The ribbon .
Good design and usability .
Vista. Another paragon of UI simplicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...promoting good design and usability practice across the product family up to the Vista and Office 2007 releases..."Um...yah.
The ribbon.
Good design and usability.
Vista. Another paragon of UI simplicity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416890</id>
	<title>Could Explain my Vista Pain</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268163000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Tandy Trower, the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door a quarter century ago, has written a memoir of the experience. (He thought being assigned the much-maligned project was Microsoft's fiendish way of trying to get rid of him.) The story involves such still-significant figures as Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Ray Ozzie, and Nathan Myhrvold; Trower left Microsoft only in November of 2009 after 28 years with the company."</em></p><p>It's boggled my mind why Search Indexer in Vista has been killing my computer with no benefit. Stopping it has resulted in instant gratification, but I couldn't fathom what the reason could be for it to work my hard disk so hard.</p><p>The Revenge of Tandy Trower! But I can't wait for the next version of Windows so you have the last laugh, Tandy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tandy Trower , the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door a quarter century ago , has written a memoir of the experience .
( He thought being assigned the much-maligned project was Microsoft 's fiendish way of trying to get rid of him .
) The story involves such still-significant figures as Bill Gates , Steve Ballmer , Ray Ozzie , and Nathan Myhrvold ; Trower left Microsoft only in November of 2009 after 28 years with the company .
" It 's boggled my mind why Search Indexer in Vista has been killing my computer with no benefit .
Stopping it has resulted in instant gratification , but I could n't fathom what the reason could be for it to work my hard disk so hard.The Revenge of Tandy Trower !
But I ca n't wait for the next version of Windows so you have the last laugh , Tandy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tandy Trower, the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door a quarter century ago, has written a memoir of the experience.
(He thought being assigned the much-maligned project was Microsoft's fiendish way of trying to get rid of him.
) The story involves such still-significant figures as Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Ray Ozzie, and Nathan Myhrvold; Trower left Microsoft only in November of 2009 after 28 years with the company.
"It's boggled my mind why Search Indexer in Vista has been killing my computer with no benefit.
Stopping it has resulted in instant gratification, but I couldn't fathom what the reason could be for it to work my hard disk so hard.The Revenge of Tandy Trower!
But I can't wait for the next version of Windows so you have the last laugh, Tandy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417806</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1268166960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Software should gain new features with each version. The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years. I'll give you that they aren't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985, but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model?</i> <br> <br>


You're right. So we should compare the pricing to the Enterprise Server Edition of Windows in 1985. Oh, wait... that's a non-existent product.<br> <br>

You can only compare the pricing of the home version since that's the only version remotely comparable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Software should gain new features with each version .
The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years .
I 'll give you that they are n't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985 , but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model ?
You 're right .
So we should compare the pricing to the Enterprise Server Edition of Windows in 1985 .
Oh , wait... that 's a non-existent product .
You can only compare the pricing of the home version since that 's the only version remotely comparable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Software should gain new features with each version.
The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years.
I'll give you that they aren't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985, but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model?
You're right.
So we should compare the pricing to the Enterprise Server Edition of Windows in 1985.
Oh, wait... that's a non-existent product.
You can only compare the pricing of the home version since that's the only version remotely comparable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416710</id>
	<title>MS</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268162160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's just like MS.  They may not succeed at first... Actually, they never succeed at first try, at anything.
</p><p>
And yet, they manage eventually - see how they kicked out Trevor in the end.  It's no coincidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just like MS. They may not succeed at first... Actually , they never succeed at first try , at anything .
And yet , they manage eventually - see how they kicked out Trevor in the end .
It 's no coincidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's just like MS.  They may not succeed at first... Actually, they never succeed at first try, at anything.
And yet, they manage eventually - see how they kicked out Trevor in the end.
It's no coincidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422456</id>
	<title>Re:Mach 10</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268150460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was an ST-225.</p><p>I had one in my locally-built 10MHz XT, along with CGA, 5.25" and 3.5" low-density floppies, a battery-backed real-time clock card, and a dedicated game port card.</p><p>I did, at one point, run Windows on that thing.  It was a stupid mistake that I never bothered to repeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was an ST-225.I had one in my locally-built 10MHz XT , along with CGA , 5.25 " and 3.5 " low-density floppies , a battery-backed real-time clock card , and a dedicated game port card.I did , at one point , run Windows on that thing .
It was a stupid mistake that I never bothered to repeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was an ST-225.I had one in my locally-built 10MHz XT, along with CGA, 5.25" and 3.5" low-density floppies, a battery-backed real-time clock card, and a dedicated game port card.I did, at one point, run Windows on that thing.
It was a stupid mistake that I never bothered to repeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422072</id>
	<title>Re:25 years and only 7 versions?</title>
	<author>byornski</author>
	<datestamp>1268146140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you'll find it's actualy only 6 versions over 25 years so more like 1 release every 4.2 years as you're only measuring the gap between 1 and 7 not 0 and 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find it 's actualy only 6 versions over 25 years so more like 1 release every 4.2 years as you 're only measuring the gap between 1 and 7 not 0 and 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find it's actualy only 6 versions over 25 years so more like 1 release every 4.2 years as you're only measuring the gap between 1 and 7 not 0 and 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418618</id>
	<title>Re:Different, new types of GUI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1268127120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>would love to see a brand new concepts</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean like iPhone OS? Call the iPad a gimmick if you want, but it does bring with it a brand new concept on human-computer interaction. One that I feel will carry over into traditional keyboard/mouse computing in the future.</p></div><p>The iPhone UI is simple and works well on a mobile device, and it kicked the rest of the industry in the ass and made them realize that people wanted more than just crappy, difficult to find and install Java applications on their phones.</p><p>That being said, going back to the days of running a single application at a time without a quick and easy method of moving information between them is not a step forward, nor is it new. Having a single application which serves solely as a tool to launch other applications is as old as Windows 1.0. Older, even. I remember DOS-based menu programs that did the same thing.</p><p>As a consumer device to interact with media the iPad may find a niche, but it falls on the wrong side of the toy/tool line to be taken seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>would love to see a brand new conceptsYou mean like iPhone OS ?
Call the iPad a gimmick if you want , but it does bring with it a brand new concept on human-computer interaction .
One that I feel will carry over into traditional keyboard/mouse computing in the future.The iPhone UI is simple and works well on a mobile device , and it kicked the rest of the industry in the ass and made them realize that people wanted more than just crappy , difficult to find and install Java applications on their phones.That being said , going back to the days of running a single application at a time without a quick and easy method of moving information between them is not a step forward , nor is it new .
Having a single application which serves solely as a tool to launch other applications is as old as Windows 1.0 .
Older , even .
I remember DOS-based menu programs that did the same thing.As a consumer device to interact with media the iPad may find a niche , but it falls on the wrong side of the toy/tool line to be taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would love to see a brand new conceptsYou mean like iPhone OS?
Call the iPad a gimmick if you want, but it does bring with it a brand new concept on human-computer interaction.
One that I feel will carry over into traditional keyboard/mouse computing in the future.The iPhone UI is simple and works well on a mobile device, and it kicked the rest of the industry in the ass and made them realize that people wanted more than just crappy, difficult to find and install Java applications on their phones.That being said, going back to the days of running a single application at a time without a quick and easy method of moving information between them is not a step forward, nor is it new.
Having a single application which serves solely as a tool to launch other applications is as old as Windows 1.0.
Older, even.
I remember DOS-based menu programs that did the same thing.As a consumer device to interact with media the iPad may find a niche, but it falls on the wrong side of the toy/tool line to be taken seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417054</id>
	<title>Ah The Good Ol' Days</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1268163720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember an early version of Windows (Maybe 2?) on a PC at a university where my dad taught. It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple's ProDOS. Not much more than a file shell, really. Later on I picked up a job doing OS/2 V2 tech support at IBM. There weren't many OS/2 version 1 installs inside the support organization at that point, but they had to keep a few since the Navy was still on V1.2 and some big banks still used 1.3 in their ATMs. OS/2 version 1 looked <i>exactly</i> like windows 3.1.
<p>
I used to say at the time that if they wanted to illustrate the difference between OS/2 and windows, they could just format a floppy on OS/2 while continuing to do other stuff. Not that OS/2 was a whole lot better about stuff like that -- not many developers actually threaded their applications, and so a single misbehaving app could lock up the OS by not processing its input queue messages. You still see symptoms of that in Windows today, although it's not as bad as it used to be.
</p><p>
They tried to fix that and some of the other OS/2 problems in Warp, but warp (IMO) looked like ass and didn't work as well as V2. The problem with IBM is they're used to listening to their corporate customers and wouldn't know sexy OS design if you beat them over the head with it. Fortunately Linux was just getting popular right around that time and so when IBM strangled the baby (You can tell I'm still a bit bitter about it eh? Heh heh heh) a lot of us were able to jump ship. Linux was pretty much everything I ever wanted in an operating system, anyway. I'm on OSX at the moment, but once you get past its pretty looks you realize that it just won't bend the way you want it to.
</p><p>
So... anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yeah, Get off my lawn, you damn kids!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember an early version of Windows ( Maybe 2 ?
) on a PC at a university where my dad taught .
It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple 's ProDOS .
Not much more than a file shell , really .
Later on I picked up a job doing OS/2 V2 tech support at IBM .
There were n't many OS/2 version 1 installs inside the support organization at that point , but they had to keep a few since the Navy was still on V1.2 and some big banks still used 1.3 in their ATMs .
OS/2 version 1 looked exactly like windows 3.1 .
I used to say at the time that if they wanted to illustrate the difference between OS/2 and windows , they could just format a floppy on OS/2 while continuing to do other stuff .
Not that OS/2 was a whole lot better about stuff like that -- not many developers actually threaded their applications , and so a single misbehaving app could lock up the OS by not processing its input queue messages .
You still see symptoms of that in Windows today , although it 's not as bad as it used to be .
They tried to fix that and some of the other OS/2 problems in Warp , but warp ( IMO ) looked like ass and did n't work as well as V2 .
The problem with IBM is they 're used to listening to their corporate customers and would n't know sexy OS design if you beat them over the head with it .
Fortunately Linux was just getting popular right around that time and so when IBM strangled the baby ( You can tell I 'm still a bit bitter about it eh ?
Heh heh heh ) a lot of us were able to jump ship .
Linux was pretty much everything I ever wanted in an operating system , anyway .
I 'm on OSX at the moment , but once you get past its pretty looks you realize that it just wo n't bend the way you want it to .
So... anyway , what was I talking about ?
Oh yeah , Get off my lawn , you damn kids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember an early version of Windows (Maybe 2?
) on a PC at a university where my dad taught.
It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple's ProDOS.
Not much more than a file shell, really.
Later on I picked up a job doing OS/2 V2 tech support at IBM.
There weren't many OS/2 version 1 installs inside the support organization at that point, but they had to keep a few since the Navy was still on V1.2 and some big banks still used 1.3 in their ATMs.
OS/2 version 1 looked exactly like windows 3.1.
I used to say at the time that if they wanted to illustrate the difference between OS/2 and windows, they could just format a floppy on OS/2 while continuing to do other stuff.
Not that OS/2 was a whole lot better about stuff like that -- not many developers actually threaded their applications, and so a single misbehaving app could lock up the OS by not processing its input queue messages.
You still see symptoms of that in Windows today, although it's not as bad as it used to be.
They tried to fix that and some of the other OS/2 problems in Warp, but warp (IMO) looked like ass and didn't work as well as V2.
The problem with IBM is they're used to listening to their corporate customers and wouldn't know sexy OS design if you beat them over the head with it.
Fortunately Linux was just getting popular right around that time and so when IBM strangled the baby (You can tell I'm still a bit bitter about it eh?
Heh heh heh) a lot of us were able to jump ship.
Linux was pretty much everything I ever wanted in an operating system, anyway.
I'm on OSX at the moment, but once you get past its pretty looks you realize that it just won't bend the way you want it to.
So... anyway, what was I talking about?
Oh yeah, Get off my lawn, you damn kids!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419266</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1268129820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As we are an SPLA partner, I can authoritatively say that when you buy the Professional OSs(XP Pro, etc.) you get the server CALs included with the OS for free.  That means if your Dell comes pre-installed with XP Pro or Windows 7 pro you are all set on the server side.  One more time:  the server CAL comes with the client OS.

Now if you want an exchange mailbox, that is a separate license for that software product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we are an SPLA partner , I can authoritatively say that when you buy the Professional OSs ( XP Pro , etc .
) you get the server CALs included with the OS for free .
That means if your Dell comes pre-installed with XP Pro or Windows 7 pro you are all set on the server side .
One more time : the server CAL comes with the client OS .
Now if you want an exchange mailbox , that is a separate license for that software product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we are an SPLA partner, I can authoritatively say that when you buy the Professional OSs(XP Pro, etc.
) you get the server CALs included with the OS for free.
That means if your Dell comes pre-installed with XP Pro or Windows 7 pro you are all set on the server side.
One more time:  the server CAL comes with the client OS.
Now if you want an exchange mailbox, that is a separate license for that software product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416700</id>
	<title>Isn't it still vaporware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268162100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pipe firmly in mouth and cheek.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pipe firmly in mouth and cheek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pipe firmly in mouth and cheek.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416962</id>
	<title>Once again Inigo Montoya says:</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1268163300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You keep using that word "vaporware". I do not think it means what you think it means.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep using that word " vaporware " .
I do not think it means what you think it means .
.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep using that word "vaporware".
I do not think it means what you think it means.
...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419168</id>
	<title>Re:I still have a copy...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268129460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>file management programs at the time (which is all Win was at that point, iirc)</p></div><p>Not quite - Windows was also (and, in fact, first and foremost) a programming framework for cooperative multitasking and GUI. Quite a few Win32 API functions today date back to the earliest releases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>file management programs at the time ( which is all Win was at that point , iirc ) Not quite - Windows was also ( and , in fact , first and foremost ) a programming framework for cooperative multitasking and GUI .
Quite a few Win32 API functions today date back to the earliest releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>file management programs at the time (which is all Win was at that point, iirc)Not quite - Windows was also (and, in fact, first and foremost) a programming framework for cooperative multitasking and GUI.
Quite a few Win32 API functions today date back to the earliest releases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416704</id>
	<title>A fantastic read! THANK YOU!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268162100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a tremendous read. Thank you for writing that, Tandy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a tremendous read .
Thank you for writing that , Tandy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a tremendous read.
Thank you for writing that, Tandy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416904</id>
	<title>ancient history</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1268163120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This brings back memories for me, too.  I got my start before IBM came out with their first PC.  My dad owned an early PC, and I used PC-DOS and MS-DOS versions up through the whole bleeding history.  I used Windows 1.0 on those lovely old monochrome monitors, and was working on a GUI for a data collection circuit in college.  Then 2.0/286/etc. with the proportional fonts and an untiled desktop.  I beta-tested for 3.0, and joined Microsoft in time to be a part of the Windows 3.1 development team.  Those were the fun days; most of those who hated Microsoft just preferred the technologies in other products from Lotus, Borland, or various Unix providers.  And that was really just fine with everyone.  Everyone but Microsoft management, of course.  Managers steered the ship ever more steadily to the dark side, building on their success with monopoly-abusing deals and secret contracts with the OEMs.  Ship a CPU, pay for Windows whether you use it or not.  I left the company (for unrelated reasons) around the time when "Windows 95" was still code-named "Chicago," and that code name had just replaced the earlier code name:  "Windows 93."</p><p>By the way, if anyone has an unmodified copy of Win3.10 (not 3.11) USER.EXE, shoot me an email.  I've lost some of my ancient archives and would like to snag some of the resources in that file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This brings back memories for me , too .
I got my start before IBM came out with their first PC .
My dad owned an early PC , and I used PC-DOS and MS-DOS versions up through the whole bleeding history .
I used Windows 1.0 on those lovely old monochrome monitors , and was working on a GUI for a data collection circuit in college .
Then 2.0/286/etc .
with the proportional fonts and an untiled desktop .
I beta-tested for 3.0 , and joined Microsoft in time to be a part of the Windows 3.1 development team .
Those were the fun days ; most of those who hated Microsoft just preferred the technologies in other products from Lotus , Borland , or various Unix providers .
And that was really just fine with everyone .
Everyone but Microsoft management , of course .
Managers steered the ship ever more steadily to the dark side , building on their success with monopoly-abusing deals and secret contracts with the OEMs .
Ship a CPU , pay for Windows whether you use it or not .
I left the company ( for unrelated reasons ) around the time when " Windows 95 " was still code-named " Chicago , " and that code name had just replaced the earlier code name : " Windows 93 .
" By the way , if anyone has an unmodified copy of Win3.10 ( not 3.11 ) USER.EXE , shoot me an email .
I 've lost some of my ancient archives and would like to snag some of the resources in that file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This brings back memories for me, too.
I got my start before IBM came out with their first PC.
My dad owned an early PC, and I used PC-DOS and MS-DOS versions up through the whole bleeding history.
I used Windows 1.0 on those lovely old monochrome monitors, and was working on a GUI for a data collection circuit in college.
Then 2.0/286/etc.
with the proportional fonts and an untiled desktop.
I beta-tested for 3.0, and joined Microsoft in time to be a part of the Windows 3.1 development team.
Those were the fun days; most of those who hated Microsoft just preferred the technologies in other products from Lotus, Borland, or various Unix providers.
And that was really just fine with everyone.
Everyone but Microsoft management, of course.
Managers steered the ship ever more steadily to the dark side, building on their success with monopoly-abusing deals and secret contracts with the OEMs.
Ship a CPU, pay for Windows whether you use it or not.
I left the company (for unrelated reasons) around the time when "Windows 95" was still code-named "Chicago," and that code name had just replaced the earlier code name:  "Windows 93.
"By the way, if anyone has an unmodified copy of Win3.10 (not 3.11) USER.EXE, shoot me an email.
I've lost some of my ancient archives and would like to snag some of the resources in that file.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417674</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember reversie?</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1268166360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the 286's the military had no clue what to do with</p></div><p>I find it hard to believe that the Navy couldn't recognize a boat anchor when it saw one.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me ducks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the 286 's the military had no clue what to do withI find it hard to believe that the Navy could n't recognize a boat anchor when it saw one .
/me ducks : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 286's the military had no clue what to do withI find it hard to believe that the Navy couldn't recognize a boat anchor when it saw one.
/me ducks :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417480</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember reversie?</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1268165520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, Desqview. And it was Reversi, without the e on the end. Speaking of BBS's, how about Opus?</p><p>Am I dating myself a bit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , Desqview .
And it was Reversi , without the e on the end .
Speaking of BBS 's , how about Opus ? Am I dating myself a bit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, Desqview.
And it was Reversi, without the e on the end.
Speaking of BBS's, how about Opus?Am I dating myself a bit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422334</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268149380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can use Volume licence keys for the desktops. We have a small organisation of 100 seats, and the VLK was much cheaper than per system licences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use Volume licence keys for the desktops .
We have a small organisation of 100 seats , and the VLK was much cheaper than per system licences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use Volume licence keys for the desktops.
We have a small organisation of 100 seats, and the VLK was much cheaper than per system licences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417946</id>
	<title>Re:Different, new types of GUI?</title>
	<author>sammyF70</author>
	<datestamp>1268167680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you might want to try one of the modern tiling  window manager (or "really good at tiling- but it's not all it does and if you say tiling I'm going to be really upset - the Dev"-WM, like Awesome). I moved to Awesome a few month ago, and while it is quite a switch at first, I find it very difficult to go back to Gnome or KDE (or windows if I boot that), as suddenly the usual "desktop with windows" paradigm seems clunky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you might want to try one of the modern tiling window manager ( or " really good at tiling- but it 's not all it does and if you say tiling I 'm going to be really upset - the Dev " -WM , like Awesome ) .
I moved to Awesome a few month ago , and while it is quite a switch at first , I find it very difficult to go back to Gnome or KDE ( or windows if I boot that ) , as suddenly the usual " desktop with windows " paradigm seems clunky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you might want to try one of the modern tiling  window manager (or "really good at tiling- but it's not all it does and if you say tiling I'm going to be really upset - the Dev"-WM, like Awesome).
I moved to Awesome a few month ago, and while it is quite a switch at first, I find it very difficult to go back to Gnome or KDE (or windows if I boot that), as suddenly the usual "desktop with windows" paradigm seems clunky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268165160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software should gain new features with each version. The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years.</p><p>I'll give you that they aren't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985, but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model?</p><p>Let's say you're a small business that needs 25 seats.</p><p>You pay for a server license for your domain controller, and a server license for a backup domain controller. Since you're a small shop, that is also the box you run Exchange off of. For both Windows Server and Exchange, you need CALs in addition to the server licenses.</p><p>Then each end user basically needs a SEPERATE client license from the CAL, since their individual desktop OSes need a license, and for email, they need Outlook licenses.</p><p>Shouldn't the server CAL effectively be the same thing as the client software license? They're double-dipping on what is already a very expensive license.</p><p>Home users pirate Windows en-masse, or get it pre-installed with their computer via a cheap OEM license bundled in. Microsoft makes their money on enterprise licensing, where they do jack their prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software should gain new features with each version .
The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years.I 'll give you that they are n't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985 , but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model ? Let 's say you 're a small business that needs 25 seats.You pay for a server license for your domain controller , and a server license for a backup domain controller .
Since you 're a small shop , that is also the box you run Exchange off of .
For both Windows Server and Exchange , you need CALs in addition to the server licenses.Then each end user basically needs a SEPERATE client license from the CAL , since their individual desktop OSes need a license , and for email , they need Outlook licenses.Should n't the server CAL effectively be the same thing as the client software license ?
They 're double-dipping on what is already a very expensive license.Home users pirate Windows en-masse , or get it pre-installed with their computer via a cheap OEM license bundled in .
Microsoft makes their money on enterprise licensing , where they do jack their prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software should gain new features with each version.
The addditional functionality of the OS should be a given over the years.I'll give you that they aren't jacking the price of the Home version given the price in 1985, but have you seen their Enterprise Server pricing model?Let's say you're a small business that needs 25 seats.You pay for a server license for your domain controller, and a server license for a backup domain controller.
Since you're a small shop, that is also the box you run Exchange off of.
For both Windows Server and Exchange, you need CALs in addition to the server licenses.Then each end user basically needs a SEPERATE client license from the CAL, since their individual desktop OSes need a license, and for email, they need Outlook licenses.Shouldn't the server CAL effectively be the same thing as the client software license?
They're double-dipping on what is already a very expensive license.Home users pirate Windows en-masse, or get it pre-installed with their computer via a cheap OEM license bundled in.
Microsoft makes their money on enterprise licensing, where they do jack their prices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417338</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>geekprime</author>
	<datestamp>1268164980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting that you posted that as ac...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that you posted that as ac.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that you posted that as ac...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417882</id>
	<title>Re:Oi woz there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95."</p><p>Ouch. Wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95. " Ouch .
Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95."Ouch.
Wow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420734</id>
	<title>Windows 1 was not vapourware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268136600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It actually existed. My neighbor got his hands on a mobile PC (by mobile it was huge) with a very tiny TV screen on it and keyboard. Similar to the first gen Compaq portables. Worked perfectly.</p><p>He gave me the machine to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... actually see if you could install windows 95 on it. I almost cried that he would even attempt it. I offered him 100 euros for machine but he wouldn't sell it. No idea where that machine is now. I believe he sold it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It actually existed .
My neighbor got his hands on a mobile PC ( by mobile it was huge ) with a very tiny TV screen on it and keyboard .
Similar to the first gen Compaq portables .
Worked perfectly.He gave me the machine to ... actually see if you could install windows 95 on it .
I almost cried that he would even attempt it .
I offered him 100 euros for machine but he would n't sell it .
No idea where that machine is now .
I believe he sold it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It actually existed.
My neighbor got his hands on a mobile PC (by mobile it was huge) with a very tiny TV screen on it and keyboard.
Similar to the first gen Compaq portables.
Worked perfectly.He gave me the machine to ... actually see if you could install windows 95 on it.
I almost cried that he would even attempt it.
I offered him 100 euros for machine but he wouldn't sell it.
No idea where that machine is now.
I believe he sold it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31425202</id>
	<title>Re:Different, new types of GUI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268231820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;But it would be nice to get more innovation in that department<br>That is M$s problem , they have none left, all their stuff is usually pilfered from other apps, and they add it to theirs (look at the evolution of add ons from visual studio as an example or even IE tabs coming from FF). The fact is too many old school guys not wanting to let the new blood perform, they prefer conforming them, until their is creativity left.<br>Sure security has been a big point as of late and they are trying (not much succeeding), but all in all, the coolness<br>of opening a new windows (7) machine is gone, nothing cool anymore worth a big "ooooouhhhh"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But it would be nice to get more innovation in that departmentThat is M $ s problem , they have none left , all their stuff is usually pilfered from other apps , and they add it to theirs ( look at the evolution of add ons from visual studio as an example or even IE tabs coming from FF ) .
The fact is too many old school guys not wanting to let the new blood perform , they prefer conforming them , until their is creativity left.Sure security has been a big point as of late and they are trying ( not much succeeding ) , but all in all , the coolnessof opening a new windows ( 7 ) machine is gone , nothing cool anymore worth a big " ooooouhhhh "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;But it would be nice to get more innovation in that departmentThat is M$s problem , they have none left, all their stuff is usually pilfered from other apps, and they add it to theirs (look at the evolution of add ons from visual studio as an example or even IE tabs coming from FF).
The fact is too many old school guys not wanting to let the new blood perform, they prefer conforming them, until their is creativity left.Sure security has been a big point as of late and they are trying (not much succeeding), but all in all, the coolnessof opening a new windows (7) machine is gone, nothing cool anymore worth a big "ooooouhhhh"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417396</id>
	<title>The secret origin of windows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holes in the wall?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holes in the wall ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holes in the wall?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418844</id>
	<title>SoftCard, CP/M, Decathlon...</title>
	<author>PinchDuck</author>
	<datestamp>1268128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All legal drugs. Well, the packaging was. Open that binder and get a whiff of vinyl that would have you dizzy for several minutes. Is it Mr. Trower that I have to thank for all my pre-teen buzzes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All legal drugs .
Well , the packaging was .
Open that binder and get a whiff of vinyl that would have you dizzy for several minutes .
Is it Mr. Trower that I have to thank for all my pre-teen buzzes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All legal drugs.
Well, the packaging was.
Open that binder and get a whiff of vinyl that would have you dizzy for several minutes.
Is it Mr. Trower that I have to thank for all my pre-teen buzzes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420104</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember reversie?</title>
	<author>Richard Steiner</author>
	<datestamp>1268133660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opus?  As in Fido Opus Seadog Serial Interface Layer?  Heh.</p><p>I liked Citadel and TProBBS for local discussions, and PCBoard or Wildcat! for Fido/RIME discussions, usually via the QWK door.  MajorBBS sucked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Nick should NEVER have switched PC Library from dBBS.</p><p>SLiMeR made all your messaging pains go away.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opus ?
As in Fido Opus Seadog Serial Interface Layer ?
Heh.I liked Citadel and TProBBS for local discussions , and PCBoard or Wildcat !
for Fido/RIME discussions , usually via the QWK door .
MajorBBS sucked ... Nick should NEVER have switched PC Library from dBBS.SLiMeR made all your messaging pains go away .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opus?
As in Fido Opus Seadog Serial Interface Layer?
Heh.I liked Citadel and TProBBS for local discussions, and PCBoard or Wildcat!
for Fido/RIME discussions, usually via the QWK door.
MajorBBS sucked ... Nick should NEVER have switched PC Library from dBBS.SLiMeR made all your messaging pains go away.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692</id>
	<title>To be fair...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268162100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they also had Ballmer doing crazy commercials at that time. It was destined to do badly.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they also had Ballmer doing crazy commercials at that time .
It was destined to do badly.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = tGvHNNOLnCk [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they also had Ballmer doing crazy commercials at that time.
It was destined to do badly.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417126</id>
	<title>You 1nsensitive clod...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268164020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Raci5t?  How is bunch of gay negros</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Raci5t ?
How is bunch of gay negros [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raci5t?
How is bunch of gay negros [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417372</id>
	<title>Vaporware or "Bug"ware.... whats the difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was there with many of you. Win 1.0 (as was V2) was largely a failure because of lack of applications, poor hardware support, segmented memory (meaning 286 had a completely dysfunctional memory management scheme, even with tools which came later like EMM386), and a host of other problems.</p><p>It would load and run, but it was basically a demo o/s with a buggy MFC library.  It just sucked as a development platform and it was worse as a commercial platform for even business apps, let alone high performance games which have become the real test of a platforms commercial viability.</p><p>Kind of reminds me of every MS Win version since then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  but in all honesty, V1 (and V2) showed what was possible.  Both the hardware and software would have to improve (via flat 386 address space), speed, memory, etc. before it would have enough ROI to make it practical for anything but larger businesses.  It's probably good that both V1 and V2 had the problems they did, they needed to suffer to enable what they have become... something increasingly stable, and commercially viable if not scalable and reliable.</p><p>Now if only we could have someone with a real vision to do the platform planning... we could insure MS/Intel success into the year 2015..... Oops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was there with many of you .
Win 1.0 ( as was V2 ) was largely a failure because of lack of applications , poor hardware support , segmented memory ( meaning 286 had a completely dysfunctional memory management scheme , even with tools which came later like EMM386 ) , and a host of other problems.It would load and run , but it was basically a demo o/s with a buggy MFC library .
It just sucked as a development platform and it was worse as a commercial platform for even business apps , let alone high performance games which have become the real test of a platforms commercial viability.Kind of reminds me of every MS Win version since then ... ; - ) but in all honesty , V1 ( and V2 ) showed what was possible .
Both the hardware and software would have to improve ( via flat 386 address space ) , speed , memory , etc .
before it would have enough ROI to make it practical for anything but larger businesses .
It 's probably good that both V1 and V2 had the problems they did , they needed to suffer to enable what they have become... something increasingly stable , and commercially viable if not scalable and reliable.Now if only we could have someone with a real vision to do the platform planning... we could insure MS/Intel success into the year 2015..... Oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was there with many of you.
Win 1.0 (as was V2) was largely a failure because of lack of applications, poor hardware support, segmented memory (meaning 286 had a completely dysfunctional memory management scheme, even with tools which came later like EMM386), and a host of other problems.It would load and run, but it was basically a demo o/s with a buggy MFC library.
It just sucked as a development platform and it was worse as a commercial platform for even business apps, let alone high performance games which have become the real test of a platforms commercial viability.Kind of reminds me of every MS Win version since then ... ;-)  but in all honesty, V1 (and V2) showed what was possible.
Both the hardware and software would have to improve (via flat 386 address space), speed, memory, etc.
before it would have enough ROI to make it practical for anything but larger businesses.
It's probably good that both V1 and V2 had the problems they did, they needed to suffer to enable what they have become... something increasingly stable, and commercially viable if not scalable and reliable.Now if only we could have someone with a real vision to do the platform planning... we could insure MS/Intel success into the year 2015..... Oops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419092</id>
	<title>Re:Why would anyone buy Windows before 95?</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1268129100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know this sounds trollish, but my gods, why would anyone have bought Windows before Win 95?</p></div><p>"Buy"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this sounds trollish , but my gods , why would anyone have bought Windows before Win 95 ?
" Buy " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this sounds trollish, but my gods, why would anyone have bought Windows before Win 95?
"Buy"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417760</id>
	<title>Re:Different, new types of GUI?</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1268166780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who <b>bought</b> the concept from Xerox)</p></div></blockquote><p>Just corrected that common misconception in your statement.  Apple actually paid Xerox in Apple shares for those visits, and at the time it was said to be the most lucrative thing PARC had done up to then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who bought the concept from Xerox ) Just corrected that common misconception in your statement .
Apple actually paid Xerox in Apple shares for those visits , and at the time it was said to be the most lucrative thing PARC had done up to then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who bought the concept from Xerox)Just corrected that common misconception in your statement.
Apple actually paid Xerox in Apple shares for those visits, and at the time it was said to be the most lucrative thing PARC had done up to then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31423326</id>
	<title>I've found my v1.0 disks back ... upgrade time!?</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1268159700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found back a few dozen stacks of disks; from DOS to Win v1.0 to Win3.11 wfw...</p><p>I wonder if Microsoft would accept these to upgrade to CD/DVD; since they are taking up space-by-the-dozen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>The memories i have found back in boxes.. GEM, PCTools, Qemm, Stacker, Sierra Games, Lucasart games like Monkey Island and Zach Mc Cracken, PC/NFS, Turbo/Borland Pascal, Netware, Lantastic, Norton Utilities (when they were still usable, like diskeditor etc..), Remote Access, PCBoard, Frontdoor, Toscan and so much more when shareware was triving hard...</p><p>Probably also the reason why I'm currently selling all my old software.. it takes up way too much space in those times where boxes and paper manuals were golden. I can still remember my DBase IV box supporting my monitor for quite some while without problems.. as monitor stand..</p><p>Windows95 was actually a platform I've denied for quite some time; skipped from Win3.0 directly towards OS/2 as betatester and had my happiest times back then where multitasking really worked! I've programmed some shareware around that time for Dos and RA/Proboard but abandoned once everything went graphical. Things used to be easier back then when 640k ought to be enough (tm)(r)(c). Oh and the tricks that could be done with a graphics card and a few lines of assembly code.. the same time debug was being used to low level format a diskdrive... what was it again?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><blockquote><div><p>debug<br>
&nbsp; -g=c800:5</p></div></blockquote><p>After all this juggling with disks and cd's, I've finally convinced myself OS X and Linux are the real way to go in order to step out the vicious circle of Microsoft computing. I've got one Windows XP PC, a linux server and a Mac with Leopard and it really "just works" like it should be. Just like those good old OS/2 days...</p><p>Can't really figure out why I went from Borland Pascal straight towards Perl yet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. probably because I do believe in the power and simplicity of web applications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found back a few dozen stacks of disks ; from DOS to Win v1.0 to Win3.11 wfw...I wonder if Microsoft would accept these to upgrade to CD/DVD ; since they are taking up space-by-the-dozen ; ) The memories i have found back in boxes.. GEM , PCTools , Qemm , Stacker , Sierra Games , Lucasart games like Monkey Island and Zach Mc Cracken , PC/NFS , Turbo/Borland Pascal , Netware , Lantastic , Norton Utilities ( when they were still usable , like diskeditor etc.. ) , Remote Access , PCBoard , Frontdoor , Toscan and so much more when shareware was triving hard...Probably also the reason why I 'm currently selling all my old software.. it takes up way too much space in those times where boxes and paper manuals were golden .
I can still remember my DBase IV box supporting my monitor for quite some while without problems.. as monitor stand..Windows95 was actually a platform I 've denied for quite some time ; skipped from Win3.0 directly towards OS/2 as betatester and had my happiest times back then where multitasking really worked !
I 've programmed some shareware around that time for Dos and RA/Proboard but abandoned once everything went graphical .
Things used to be easier back then when 640k ought to be enough ( tm ) ( r ) ( c ) .
Oh and the tricks that could be done with a graphics card and a few lines of assembly code.. the same time debug was being used to low level format a diskdrive... what was it again ?
..debug   -g = c800 : 5After all this juggling with disks and cd 's , I 've finally convinced myself OS X and Linux are the real way to go in order to step out the vicious circle of Microsoft computing .
I 've got one Windows XP PC , a linux server and a Mac with Leopard and it really " just works " like it should be .
Just like those good old OS/2 days...Ca n't really figure out why I went from Borland Pascal straight towards Perl yet .. probably because I do believe in the power and simplicity of web applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found back a few dozen stacks of disks; from DOS to Win v1.0 to Win3.11 wfw...I wonder if Microsoft would accept these to upgrade to CD/DVD; since they are taking up space-by-the-dozen ;)The memories i have found back in boxes.. GEM, PCTools, Qemm, Stacker, Sierra Games, Lucasart games like Monkey Island and Zach Mc Cracken, PC/NFS, Turbo/Borland Pascal, Netware, Lantastic, Norton Utilities (when they were still usable, like diskeditor etc..), Remote Access, PCBoard, Frontdoor, Toscan and so much more when shareware was triving hard...Probably also the reason why I'm currently selling all my old software.. it takes up way too much space in those times where boxes and paper manuals were golden.
I can still remember my DBase IV box supporting my monitor for quite some while without problems.. as monitor stand..Windows95 was actually a platform I've denied for quite some time; skipped from Win3.0 directly towards OS/2 as betatester and had my happiest times back then where multitasking really worked!
I've programmed some shareware around that time for Dos and RA/Proboard but abandoned once everything went graphical.
Things used to be easier back then when 640k ought to be enough (tm)(r)(c).
Oh and the tricks that could be done with a graphics card and a few lines of assembly code.. the same time debug was being used to low level format a diskdrive... what was it again?
..debug
  -g=c800:5After all this juggling with disks and cd's, I've finally convinced myself OS X and Linux are the real way to go in order to step out the vicious circle of Microsoft computing.
I've got one Windows XP PC, a linux server and a Mac with Leopard and it really "just works" like it should be.
Just like those good old OS/2 days...Can't really figure out why I went from Borland Pascal straight towards Perl yet .. probably because I do believe in the power and simplicity of web applications.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416938</id>
	<title>Re:MS</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268163240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trower, I mean, not Trevor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trower , I mean , not Trevor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trower, I mean, not Trevor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418616</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1268127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you're pretending there are all these extra licensing costs when there aren't.   You'll get all that and more with SBS 2008 Standard:  <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/editions-overview.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/editions-overview.aspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 're pretending there are all these extra licensing costs when there are n't .
You 'll get all that and more with SBS 2008 Standard : http : //www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/editions-overview.aspx [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you're pretending there are all these extra licensing costs when there aren't.
You'll get all that and more with SBS 2008 Standard:  http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/editions-overview.aspx [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417556</id>
	<title>Re:Oi woz there</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268165820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.</p></div><p>Well, there you have someone who won&rsquo;t get your work anytime soon. ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.Well , there you have someone who won    t get your work anytime soon .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.Well, there you have someone who won’t get your work anytime soon.
^^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419054</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair... - You have your CAL's wrong</title>
	<author>majest!k</author>
	<datestamp>1268128920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you buy Exchange with 25 CAL's, that entitles you to run Outlook on 25 client computers. Not Office, just Outlook.</p><p>You still have to pay for the 25 seats of Windows, but if this is a business, chances are they've already bought OEM licenses of Windows from the hardware vendor (Dell/HP/IBM), which is MUCH less than $200 per seat.</p><p>Also, a small business with 25 users can just by one license of "Small Business Server" which includes AD, Exchange, SQL Server, etc, all in one package, meant to literally run on a single server, with CAL's included.</p><p>Microsoft makes their money with the Windows + Office + Active Directory + Exchange lock-in.</p><p>(Exchange requires Outlook, requires Windows, requires AD).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you buy Exchange with 25 CAL 's , that entitles you to run Outlook on 25 client computers .
Not Office , just Outlook.You still have to pay for the 25 seats of Windows , but if this is a business , chances are they 've already bought OEM licenses of Windows from the hardware vendor ( Dell/HP/IBM ) , which is MUCH less than $ 200 per seat.Also , a small business with 25 users can just by one license of " Small Business Server " which includes AD , Exchange , SQL Server , etc , all in one package , meant to literally run on a single server , with CAL 's included.Microsoft makes their money with the Windows + Office + Active Directory + Exchange lock-in .
( Exchange requires Outlook , requires Windows , requires AD ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you buy Exchange with 25 CAL's, that entitles you to run Outlook on 25 client computers.
Not Office, just Outlook.You still have to pay for the 25 seats of Windows, but if this is a business, chances are they've already bought OEM licenses of Windows from the hardware vendor (Dell/HP/IBM), which is MUCH less than $200 per seat.Also, a small business with 25 users can just by one license of "Small Business Server" which includes AD, Exchange, SQL Server, etc, all in one package, meant to literally run on a single server, with CAL's included.Microsoft makes their money with the Windows + Office + Active Directory + Exchange lock-in.
(Exchange requires Outlook, requires Windows, requires AD).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417056</id>
	<title>Required Reading for Geeks</title>
	<author>Liquidrage</author>
	<datestamp>1268163720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html" title="pbs.org">http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html</a> [pbs.org]
<br> <br>
It's a bit old by now, but the history is still interesting and meaningful.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html" title="pbs.org">http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html</a> [pbs.org]
<br>
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part1.html" title="pbs.org">http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part1.html</a> [pbs.org]
<br> <br>
They can really be read in any order.
<br> <br>
Anyways, I don't think stole is the right word. Xerox gave it away. Jobs was 100\% obsessed with it. Gates saw it as the wave of the future. The GUI wasn't a secret by the time it got to Gates. But it was done by Xerox who was too busy worrying about laser printing (which oddly is the main reason the Macs survived at all through the late 80's) to care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html [ pbs.org ] It 's a bit old by now , but the history is still interesting and meaningful .
http : //www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html [ pbs.org ] http : //www.pbs.org/nerds/part1.html [ pbs.org ] They can really be read in any order .
Anyways , I do n't think stole is the right word .
Xerox gave it away .
Jobs was 100 \ % obsessed with it .
Gates saw it as the wave of the future .
The GUI was n't a secret by the time it got to Gates .
But it was done by Xerox who was too busy worrying about laser printing ( which oddly is the main reason the Macs survived at all through the late 80 's ) to care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html [pbs.org]
 
It's a bit old by now, but the history is still interesting and meaningful.
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html [pbs.org]

http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part1.html [pbs.org]
 
They can really be read in any order.
Anyways, I don't think stole is the right word.
Xerox gave it away.
Jobs was 100\% obsessed with it.
Gates saw it as the wave of the future.
The GUI wasn't a secret by the time it got to Gates.
But it was done by Xerox who was too busy worrying about laser printing (which oddly is the main reason the Macs survived at all through the late 80's) to care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419320</id>
	<title>Re:Mach 10</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1268130060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see your XT clone and raise you my Amiga 1000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see your XT clone and raise you my Amiga 1000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see your XT clone and raise you my Amiga 1000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419442</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>kiwimate</author>
	<datestamp>1268130540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should <b>not</b> be marked informative. As others point out below, that is precisely the situation for which Microsoft provides SBS (Small Business Server), and has done so for over a decade. According to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/pricing.aspx" title="microsoft.com">this page</a> [microsoft.com] it's $1,089 for SBS Standard Edition with 5 CALs, and $1,540 for an additional 20 CALs. Less than $3,000 to get your 25 user office up and running, and you don't need a huge investment in hardware because it's designed to run on one server.</p><p>(And why did you call out the Enterprise version of Windows Server? It'd be a fairly unusual small company that needs that kind of horsepower. Even most true enterprises run Standard Server on most of their machines and only put Enterprise on the ones that really need it. I think you're trying to troll...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should not be marked informative .
As others point out below , that is precisely the situation for which Microsoft provides SBS ( Small Business Server ) , and has done so for over a decade .
According to this page [ microsoft.com ] it 's $ 1,089 for SBS Standard Edition with 5 CALs , and $ 1,540 for an additional 20 CALs .
Less than $ 3,000 to get your 25 user office up and running , and you do n't need a huge investment in hardware because it 's designed to run on one server .
( And why did you call out the Enterprise version of Windows Server ?
It 'd be a fairly unusual small company that needs that kind of horsepower .
Even most true enterprises run Standard Server on most of their machines and only put Enterprise on the ones that really need it .
I think you 're trying to troll... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should not be marked informative.
As others point out below, that is precisely the situation for which Microsoft provides SBS (Small Business Server), and has done so for over a decade.
According to this page [microsoft.com] it's $1,089 for SBS Standard Edition with 5 CALs, and $1,540 for an additional 20 CALs.
Less than $3,000 to get your 25 user office up and running, and you don't need a huge investment in hardware because it's designed to run on one server.
(And why did you call out the Enterprise version of Windows Server?
It'd be a fairly unusual small company that needs that kind of horsepower.
Even most true enterprises run Standard Server on most of their machines and only put Enterprise on the ones that really need it.
I think you're trying to troll...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417662</id>
	<title>a history of the personal computer</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1268166360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>This book is an exciting <a href="http://www.retrocomputing.net/info/allan/" title="retrocomputing.net">history of the personal computer</a> [retrocomputing.net] revolution. Early personal computing, the "first" personal computer, invention of the microprocessor at Intel and the first microcomputer are detailed.<br> <br>

It also traces the evolution of the personal computer from the hardware and software hacker, to its use as a consumer appliance on the Internet. This is the only book that provides such comprehensive coverage. It not only describes the hardware and software, but also the companies and people who made it happened</i>"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This book is an exciting history of the personal computer [ retrocomputing.net ] revolution .
Early personal computing , the " first " personal computer , invention of the microprocessor at Intel and the first microcomputer are detailed .
It also traces the evolution of the personal computer from the hardware and software hacker , to its use as a consumer appliance on the Internet .
This is the only book that provides such comprehensive coverage .
It not only describes the hardware and software , but also the companies and people who made it happened "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This book is an exciting history of the personal computer [retrocomputing.net] revolution.
Early personal computing, the "first" personal computer, invention of the microprocessor at Intel and the first microcomputer are detailed.
It also traces the evolution of the personal computer from the hardware and software hacker, to its use as a consumer appliance on the Internet.
This is the only book that provides such comprehensive coverage.
It not only describes the hardware and software, but also the companies and people who made it happened"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418508</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268126580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a similar "rude awakening" of sorts when my boss and I tried to get some licenses for Symantec Client Security. We compared the features and costs, and concluded that CS was the best bang for the buck and would get us out of trying to justify using a free product that may perform just as well (/me shakes fist at ISO 27001 committee).</p><p>So we tried to actually purchase it, since Symantec suggests through their licensing info and online shop that you could purchase licenses one at a time. Turns out there's a minimum purchase of 5. They did that to recycle shop code, and in a sense, bait-and-switch a small business into buying a big chunk of licenses "just in case".</p><p>Finally we bought NAV at Target for 20\% off, and got to blow some raspberries at Symantec. At least, for a year.</p><p>Our parent company's Terminal Services server faces similar cost issues. "Ah, we'll need your firstborn for the server, client CALs and application CALs... then your second-born for the client CALs for the applications..."</p><p>They're thinking of brewing their own Windows server "garden" in their main or aux office. Personally I'd just rip the whole mess out and use a Linux/BSD farm, but we still handle Office documents and other Windows-dependent apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar " rude awakening " of sorts when my boss and I tried to get some licenses for Symantec Client Security .
We compared the features and costs , and concluded that CS was the best bang for the buck and would get us out of trying to justify using a free product that may perform just as well ( /me shakes fist at ISO 27001 committee ) .So we tried to actually purchase it , since Symantec suggests through their licensing info and online shop that you could purchase licenses one at a time .
Turns out there 's a minimum purchase of 5 .
They did that to recycle shop code , and in a sense , bait-and-switch a small business into buying a big chunk of licenses " just in case " .Finally we bought NAV at Target for 20 \ % off , and got to blow some raspberries at Symantec .
At least , for a year.Our parent company 's Terminal Services server faces similar cost issues .
" Ah , we 'll need your firstborn for the server , client CALs and application CALs... then your second-born for the client CALs for the applications... " They 're thinking of brewing their own Windows server " garden " in their main or aux office .
Personally I 'd just rip the whole mess out and use a Linux/BSD farm , but we still handle Office documents and other Windows-dependent apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar "rude awakening" of sorts when my boss and I tried to get some licenses for Symantec Client Security.
We compared the features and costs, and concluded that CS was the best bang for the buck and would get us out of trying to justify using a free product that may perform just as well (/me shakes fist at ISO 27001 committee).So we tried to actually purchase it, since Symantec suggests through their licensing info and online shop that you could purchase licenses one at a time.
Turns out there's a minimum purchase of 5.
They did that to recycle shop code, and in a sense, bait-and-switch a small business into buying a big chunk of licenses "just in case".Finally we bought NAV at Target for 20\% off, and got to blow some raspberries at Symantec.
At least, for a year.Our parent company's Terminal Services server faces similar cost issues.
"Ah, we'll need your firstborn for the server, client CALs and application CALs... then your second-born for the client CALs for the applications..."They're thinking of brewing their own Windows server "garden" in their main or aux office.
Personally I'd just rip the whole mess out and use a Linux/BSD farm, but we still handle Office documents and other Windows-dependent apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31424024</id>
	<title>WLO - anyone remember that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268214120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember all of this quite well, including working on WLO - 'The Windows Libraries for OS/2' in Boca Raton - and seeing 'the relationship' fall apart first hand.</p><p>Interestingly, we were often able to speed-up Windows 3 apps which ran on OS/2 via the mapping layer which was WLO - if I remember rightly, the most notable part of this was in using PM's Graphics Paths - and some probability.</p><p>Oh, and I also have some shrink-wrapped copies of Windows 3 from the launch in NY somewhere - they bear the sticker, 'I witnessed the event - 22 May 1990'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember all of this quite well , including working on WLO - 'The Windows Libraries for OS/2 ' in Boca Raton - and seeing 'the relationship ' fall apart first hand.Interestingly , we were often able to speed-up Windows 3 apps which ran on OS/2 via the mapping layer which was WLO - if I remember rightly , the most notable part of this was in using PM 's Graphics Paths - and some probability.Oh , and I also have some shrink-wrapped copies of Windows 3 from the launch in NY somewhere - they bear the sticker , 'I witnessed the event - 22 May 1990' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember all of this quite well, including working on WLO - 'The Windows Libraries for OS/2' in Boca Raton - and seeing 'the relationship' fall apart first hand.Interestingly, we were often able to speed-up Windows 3 apps which ran on OS/2 via the mapping layer which was WLO - if I remember rightly, the most notable part of this was in using PM's Graphics Paths - and some probability.Oh, and I also have some shrink-wrapped copies of Windows 3 from the launch in NY somewhere - they bear the sticker, 'I witnessed the event - 22 May 1990'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419310</id>
	<title>Re:I still have a copy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268130000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've used <a href="http://toastytech.com/guis/pub21.html" title="toastytech.com" rel="nofollow">PubTech's File Organizer for Windows 2.x</a> [toastytech.com] years ago. Hell, I would say that File Organizer was superior to Mac OS at the time (and would hold its own compared to more modern versions of Windows).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used PubTech 's File Organizer for Windows 2.x [ toastytech.com ] years ago .
Hell , I would say that File Organizer was superior to Mac OS at the time ( and would hold its own compared to more modern versions of Windows ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used PubTech's File Organizer for Windows 2.x [toastytech.com] years ago.
Hell, I would say that File Organizer was superior to Mac OS at the time (and would hold its own compared to more modern versions of Windows).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420922</id>
	<title>Re:Oi woz there</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268137620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason I didn't <i>use</i> it was because I ultimately found it more trouble than it was worth. But I still <i>knew</i> it.</p><p>Furthermore, listing version 1.0 would show how deeply I know Windows.  For example, there are keyboard shortcuts that Microsoft hasn't bothered mentioning in their documentation in 15 years... but are still supported by the UI.  So if I find myself needing to troubleshoot operations on a server that also turns out to have an unusable mouse, I can still do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason I did n't use it was because I ultimately found it more trouble than it was worth .
But I still knew it.Furthermore , listing version 1.0 would show how deeply I know Windows .
For example , there are keyboard shortcuts that Microsoft has n't bothered mentioning in their documentation in 15 years... but are still supported by the UI .
So if I find myself needing to troubleshoot operations on a server that also turns out to have an unusable mouse , I can still do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason I didn't use it was because I ultimately found it more trouble than it was worth.
But I still knew it.Furthermore, listing version 1.0 would show how deeply I know Windows.
For example, there are keyboard shortcuts that Microsoft hasn't bothered mentioning in their documentation in 15 years... but are still supported by the UI.
So if I find myself needing to troubleshoot operations on a server that also turns out to have an unusable mouse, I can still do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417966</id>
	<title>Re:Different, new types of GUI?</title>
	<author>dubbreak</author>
	<datestamp>1268167740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who took the concept from Xerox</p></div><p>
And Xerox PARC took the researchers from SRI who had been working on bit-mapped displays, collaboration software, hypertext, precursors to the graphical user interface and of course the computer mouse. That was the 60s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who took the concept from Xerox And Xerox PARC took the researchers from SRI who had been working on bit-mapped displays , collaboration software , hypertext , precursors to the graphical user interface and of course the computer mouse .
That was the 60s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Bill took the concept from Steve who took the concept from Xerox
And Xerox PARC took the researchers from SRI who had been working on bit-mapped displays, collaboration software, hypertext, precursors to the graphical user interface and of course the computer mouse.
That was the 60s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417610</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember reversie?</title>
	<author>nsaspook</author>
	<datestamp>1268166120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure I spelled that right, but anyway, Microsoft did manage to unload a boatload of V1.0 on the Navy at the least. I remember playing with it on the 286's the military had no clue what to do with. Instead of the infamous solitaire game it use to have reversie - a digital version of the othello game.</p><p>Even years late I was still happier with DOS 6.1 and Quarterdeck memory/application management. It was the only way to go to host a BBS and still have a little room to work on it while it was up.</p><p>Ah the good 'ol days when I was considered a genius simply because I did my own memory upgrades to my Tandy 1000...</p></div><p>I did contracting for NAVSEA and NAVMASSO back then on the SNAP program. We sold a lot of 286 boxes just so people could run WordStar on DOS and WordMARC on PCs. I still have (somewhere) my old DOS 1.0 , Netscape 1.0 and Windows 1.0 disks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I spelled that right , but anyway , Microsoft did manage to unload a boatload of V1.0 on the Navy at the least .
I remember playing with it on the 286 's the military had no clue what to do with .
Instead of the infamous solitaire game it use to have reversie - a digital version of the othello game.Even years late I was still happier with DOS 6.1 and Quarterdeck memory/application management .
It was the only way to go to host a BBS and still have a little room to work on it while it was up.Ah the good 'ol days when I was considered a genius simply because I did my own memory upgrades to my Tandy 1000...I did contracting for NAVSEA and NAVMASSO back then on the SNAP program .
We sold a lot of 286 boxes just so people could run WordStar on DOS and WordMARC on PCs .
I still have ( somewhere ) my old DOS 1.0 , Netscape 1.0 and Windows 1.0 disks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I spelled that right, but anyway, Microsoft did manage to unload a boatload of V1.0 on the Navy at the least.
I remember playing with it on the 286's the military had no clue what to do with.
Instead of the infamous solitaire game it use to have reversie - a digital version of the othello game.Even years late I was still happier with DOS 6.1 and Quarterdeck memory/application management.
It was the only way to go to host a BBS and still have a little room to work on it while it was up.Ah the good 'ol days when I was considered a genius simply because I did my own memory upgrades to my Tandy 1000...I did contracting for NAVSEA and NAVMASSO back then on the SNAP program.
We sold a lot of 286 boxes just so people could run WordStar on DOS and WordMARC on PCs.
I still have (somewhere) my old DOS 1.0 , Netscape 1.0 and Windows 1.0 disks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416930</id>
	<title>Still mocked, and rightly so.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268163180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your Windows box is a fun playground for criminals of all stripes, from script kiddies to mafiosos. Always will be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Windows box is a fun playground for criminals of all stripes , from script kiddies to mafiosos .
Always will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Windows box is a fun playground for criminals of all stripes, from script kiddies to mafiosos.
Always will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31428440</id>
	<title>Re:Different, new types of GUI?</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1268247120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Tandy says he took no inspiration from Apple, and that Bill Gates went out and bought a Xerox Star for software engineers to play with because he believed like Jobs that it was the future of computing (keeping in mind this machine was purchased before Apple released the Mac).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Tandy says he took no inspiration from Apple , and that Bill Gates went out and bought a Xerox Star for software engineers to play with because he believed like Jobs that it was the future of computing ( keeping in mind this machine was purchased before Apple released the Mac ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Tandy says he took no inspiration from Apple, and that Bill Gates went out and bought a Xerox Star for software engineers to play with because he believed like Jobs that it was the future of computing (keeping in mind this machine was purchased before Apple released the Mac).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417148</id>
	<title>I've still got a Win 1.04 SDK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268164140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>c/w the Windows install disk on 5.25" floppies.</p><p>Two thick beige Microsoft ringbinders (with the very old logo).</p><p>Says it all really</p><p>I've also got a strategy game "Guns and Butter" that was released with a Win 1 runtime environment, so you could run it on your IBM XT without having to go the whole hog and actually install the full Windows environment on top of DOS 2.11.</p><p>Windows 2, and Windows 286/386 was crap.</p><p>Windows 3 started to make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>c/w the Windows install disk on 5.25 " floppies.Two thick beige Microsoft ringbinders ( with the very old logo ) .Says it all reallyI 've also got a strategy game " Guns and Butter " that was released with a Win 1 runtime environment , so you could run it on your IBM XT without having to go the whole hog and actually install the full Windows environment on top of DOS 2.11.Windows 2 , and Windows 286/386 was crap.Windows 3 started to make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c/w the Windows install disk on 5.25" floppies.Two thick beige Microsoft ringbinders (with the very old logo).Says it all reallyI've also got a strategy game "Guns and Butter" that was released with a Win 1 runtime environment, so you could run it on your IBM XT without having to go the whole hog and actually install the full Windows environment on top of DOS 2.11.Windows 2, and Windows 286/386 was crap.Windows 3 started to make sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419694</id>
	<title>Re:Mach 10</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268131620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The game never made it to any other version of Windows</p></div></blockquote><p>That's because BOP wasn't a windows game - it was a DOS game.  Depending on it's graphics you may still be able to run it today.  (I'm still stuck at W95, so YMMV.)</p><p>"And no, there are no animations of cities in flames or body parts flying about.  This game does not reward failure."</p><p>(Closing text from Balance Of Power if you managed to ignite thermonuclear war and thus lose the game.  I spent many hours myself finding new and creative ways to not win...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The game never made it to any other version of WindowsThat 's because BOP was n't a windows game - it was a DOS game .
Depending on it 's graphics you may still be able to run it today .
( I 'm still stuck at W95 , so YMMV .
) " And no , there are no animations of cities in flames or body parts flying about .
This game does not reward failure .
" ( Closing text from Balance Of Power if you managed to ignite thermonuclear war and thus lose the game .
I spent many hours myself finding new and creative ways to not win... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The game never made it to any other version of WindowsThat's because BOP wasn't a windows game - it was a DOS game.
Depending on it's graphics you may still be able to run it today.
(I'm still stuck at W95, so YMMV.
)"And no, there are no animations of cities in flames or body parts flying about.
This game does not reward failure.
"(Closing text from Balance Of Power if you managed to ignite thermonuclear war and thus lose the game.
I spent many hours myself finding new and creative ways to not win...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417992</id>
	<title>Re:I still have a copy...</title>
	<author>ColoradoAuthor</author>
	<datestamp>1268167860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Likewise, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM\_Desktop" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">GEM</a> [wikipedia.org] windowing system was stable, faster, more visually appealing, and just as capable as Windows 1.0.  The PC version of GEM came with Ventura Publisher (Xerox) or it could be purchased from Digital Research.  GEM also ran on Atari and other platforms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise , the GEM [ wikipedia.org ] windowing system was stable , faster , more visually appealing , and just as capable as Windows 1.0 .
The PC version of GEM came with Ventura Publisher ( Xerox ) or it could be purchased from Digital Research .
GEM also ran on Atari and other platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise, the GEM [wikipedia.org] windowing system was stable, faster, more visually appealing, and just as capable as Windows 1.0.
The PC version of GEM came with Ventura Publisher (Xerox) or it could be purchased from Digital Research.
GEM also ran on Atari and other platforms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422032</id>
	<title>Re:Shoulda been Xenix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268145780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They could have built their next-gen OS on top of Xenix.</p></div><p>They could have, and then it would not have run on any contemporary PC.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They could have finished the OS/2 project instead of stabbing IBM in the back and doing Windows on top of DOS.</p></div><p>I've seen what IBM has been capable of, and it wasn't much. When a half-assed product like Windows 3.0 is a runaway success and OS/2 is still far from ready (for the desktop), I'd say Microsoft made the right choice. IBM was a lumbering giant, incapable of moving the operating system where it needed to be.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They could have even completed Dave Cutler's vision for Windows NT instead of MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE and top-loading all of their crap into the Win32 layer instead of building around the NT microkernel.</p></div><p>I'd like to get a citation on this. As far as my understanding goes, Dave Cutler is pretty satisfied with the way NT is structured. The NT kernel API is there, but you're not meant to use it because it's far too low level for any user level applications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could have built their next-gen OS on top of Xenix.They could have , and then it would not have run on any contemporary PC.They could have finished the OS/2 project instead of stabbing IBM in the back and doing Windows on top of DOS.I 've seen what IBM has been capable of , and it was n't much .
When a half-assed product like Windows 3.0 is a runaway success and OS/2 is still far from ready ( for the desktop ) , I 'd say Microsoft made the right choice .
IBM was a lumbering giant , incapable of moving the operating system where it needed to be.They could have even completed Dave Cutler 's vision for Windows NT instead of MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE and top-loading all of their crap into the Win32 layer instead of building around the NT microkernel.I 'd like to get a citation on this .
As far as my understanding goes , Dave Cutler is pretty satisfied with the way NT is structured .
The NT kernel API is there , but you 're not meant to use it because it 's far too low level for any user level applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could have built their next-gen OS on top of Xenix.They could have, and then it would not have run on any contemporary PC.They could have finished the OS/2 project instead of stabbing IBM in the back and doing Windows on top of DOS.I've seen what IBM has been capable of, and it wasn't much.
When a half-assed product like Windows 3.0 is a runaway success and OS/2 is still far from ready (for the desktop), I'd say Microsoft made the right choice.
IBM was a lumbering giant, incapable of moving the operating system where it needed to be.They could have even completed Dave Cutler's vision for Windows NT instead of MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE and top-loading all of their crap into the Win32 layer instead of building around the NT microkernel.I'd like to get a citation on this.
As far as my understanding goes, Dave Cutler is pretty satisfied with the way NT is structured.
The NT kernel API is there, but you're not meant to use it because it's far too low level for any user level applications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766</id>
	<title>Oi woz there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268162460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember the feeble beginnings of Windows quite well.  I started purchasing Windows with 1.04, and started using it with 3.0.</p><p>I used to list "Windows 1.0 - [current version]" on the skills section of my resume, but too many interviewers thought I was joking, because they'd never heard of such a thing (and it started making me look like I might be over 30).  One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the feeble beginnings of Windows quite well .
I started purchasing Windows with 1.04 , and started using it with 3.0.I used to list " Windows 1.0 - [ current version ] " on the skills section of my resume , but too many interviewers thought I was joking , because they 'd never heard of such a thing ( and it started making me look like I might be over 30 ) .
One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the feeble beginnings of Windows quite well.
I started purchasing Windows with 1.04, and started using it with 3.0.I used to list "Windows 1.0 - [current version]" on the skills section of my resume, but too many interviewers thought I was joking, because they'd never heard of such a thing (and it started making me look like I might be over 30).
One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417554</id>
	<title>Why would anyone buy Windows before 95?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know this sounds trollish, but my gods, why would anyone have bought Windows before Win 95? I bought a Mac II and had years and years of desktop publishing joy from it and remember the Hades that was DOS/Windows in those days. Is it really all about the cost of a cheapo IBM-compatible and not at all about actually getting work done??</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this sounds trollish , but my gods , why would anyone have bought Windows before Win 95 ?
I bought a Mac II and had years and years of desktop publishing joy from it and remember the Hades that was DOS/Windows in those days .
Is it really all about the cost of a cheapo IBM-compatible and not at all about actually getting work done ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this sounds trollish, but my gods, why would anyone have bought Windows before Win 95?
I bought a Mac II and had years and years of desktop publishing joy from it and remember the Hades that was DOS/Windows in those days.
Is it really all about the cost of a cheapo IBM-compatible and not at all about actually getting work done?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31449784</id>
	<title>Re:25 years and only 7 versions?</title>
	<author>ntufar</author>
	<datestamp>1268392200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Windows 1
<br>
2. Windows 2
<br>
3. Windows 3
<br>
4. Windows 95 / 98
<br>
5. Windows 2000 / XP
<br>
6. Windows Vista
<br>
7. Windows 7
<br>
<br>
My current Windows Vista, reports this:<blockquote><div><p>Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.</p></div>

</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Windows 1 2 .
Windows 2 3 .
Windows 3 4 .
Windows 95 / 98 5 .
Windows 2000 / XP 6 .
Windows Vista 7 .
Windows 7 My current Windows Vista , reports this : Microsoft Windows [ Version 6.0.6002 ] Copyright ( c ) 2006 Microsoft Corporation .
All rights reserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Windows 1

2.
Windows 2

3.
Windows 3

4.
Windows 95 / 98

5.
Windows 2000 / XP

6.
Windows Vista

7.
Windows 7


My current Windows Vista, reports this:Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.


	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420588</id>
	<title>Re:Mach 10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268135880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the how you got windows and balance of power in the same post.  First read...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the how you got windows and balance of power in the same post .
First read.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the how you got windows and balance of power in the same post.
First read...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31424266</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1268217480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>for email, they need Outlook licenses.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Outlook license comes together with Exchange client license. You don't need separate license to run Outlook for Windows SBE</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>for email , they need Outlook licenses .
Outlook license comes together with Exchange client license .
You do n't need separate license to run Outlook for Windows SBE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for email, they need Outlook licenses.
Outlook license comes together with Exchange client license.
You don't need separate license to run Outlook for Windows SBE
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417694</id>
	<title>Re:I thought the story went something like this:</title>
	<author>frist</author>
	<datestamp>1268166540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah you're missing a lot, like most of it. Take a gander at "In Search of Stupidity: OVER 20 YEARS OF HIGH-TECH MARKETING DISASTERS", SECOND EDITION". Much better / more accurate that that movie you watched, "Pirates of Silicon Valley".

Apple stole from Xerox because Xerox failed. I enjoyed using OS/2 2.0 personally, but 1.0 had no GUI... IBM screwed themselves over so many times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah you 're missing a lot , like most of it .
Take a gander at " In Search of Stupidity : OVER 20 YEARS OF HIGH-TECH MARKETING DISASTERS " , SECOND EDITION " .
Much better / more accurate that that movie you watched , " Pirates of Silicon Valley " .
Apple stole from Xerox because Xerox failed .
I enjoyed using OS/2 2.0 personally , but 1.0 had no GUI... IBM screwed themselves over so many times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah you're missing a lot, like most of it.
Take a gander at "In Search of Stupidity: OVER 20 YEARS OF HIGH-TECH MARKETING DISASTERS", SECOND EDITION".
Much better / more accurate that that movie you watched, "Pirates of Silicon Valley".
Apple stole from Xerox because Xerox failed.
I enjoyed using OS/2 2.0 personally, but 1.0 had no GUI... IBM screwed themselves over so many times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419688</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>brad-x</author>
	<datestamp>1268131560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A small 25 user company would best take advantage of Windows  2008 Small Business, which allows for up to 75 users and includes both Exchange and SharePoint. After that you only deal with OEM licenses of Windows. Outlook is optional, as Exchange provides capable webmail services, but again, Office Small business edition provides reasonable pricing for a small shop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A small 25 user company would best take advantage of Windows 2008 Small Business , which allows for up to 75 users and includes both Exchange and SharePoint .
After that you only deal with OEM licenses of Windows .
Outlook is optional , as Exchange provides capable webmail services , but again , Office Small business edition provides reasonable pricing for a small shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A small 25 user company would best take advantage of Windows  2008 Small Business, which allows for up to 75 users and includes both Exchange and SharePoint.
After that you only deal with OEM licenses of Windows.
Outlook is optional, as Exchange provides capable webmail services, but again, Office Small business edition provides reasonable pricing for a small shop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417516</id>
	<title>Windows history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember Windows. Back when I used to work for a little fly-by-night aerospace firm just down the road from Microsoft. We (engineering) were all using Macs for our 'productivity' applications. Serious work was done on VAX and various flavors of UNIX on mainframes/minis. It was the mid-90's. Windows had already been 'released' through version 3, but our IT department still considered it to be a joke. Unfortunately, someone in corporate had already drank the Microsoft Koolaide. The order was issued: We're going to become a Windows company. A cost justification was prepared, comparing a typical Mac, populated with every possible document/spreadsheet/database application to a bare bones DOS box. No Windows, no apps. Nothing but a C:&gt; prompt. The DOS box won (go figure) and we all figured that the fix was in. The IT folks, under orders from management, started delivering empty DOS machines to our desks (Dells). So we could watch the little cursor blink, I guess. Meanwhile, the IT department was kicked into panic mode. They were tasked with running over to Redmond and sitting on Gates' head until MS delivered something that didn't stink. Meanwhile, for about 3 months, that damned machine just sat on my desk next to my Mac, taking up room, winking its  stupid cursor at me.
</p><p>At about this time, Linux passed the 1.0 kernel version and started to look interesting. I requested the requisite authorizations and installed it on the useless Dell. I never looked back. I could log on to any of the engineering systems through X Windows and (thanks to a Citrix app) eventually access MS Office apps hosted on remote NT servers.

Until I left in 2003 (when they transferred engineering to their overseas units) I ran Linux on my desktop. So, thanks Microsoft. I you'd have had a viable GUI back then, I'd probably still be sitting in front of it reading PowerPoint presentations (the only thing the remains of our engineering group uses) innstead of running my own engineering firm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember Windows .
Back when I used to work for a little fly-by-night aerospace firm just down the road from Microsoft .
We ( engineering ) were all using Macs for our 'productivity ' applications .
Serious work was done on VAX and various flavors of UNIX on mainframes/minis .
It was the mid-90 's .
Windows had already been 'released ' through version 3 , but our IT department still considered it to be a joke .
Unfortunately , someone in corporate had already drank the Microsoft Koolaide .
The order was issued : We 're going to become a Windows company .
A cost justification was prepared , comparing a typical Mac , populated with every possible document/spreadsheet/database application to a bare bones DOS box .
No Windows , no apps .
Nothing but a C : &gt; prompt .
The DOS box won ( go figure ) and we all figured that the fix was in .
The IT folks , under orders from management , started delivering empty DOS machines to our desks ( Dells ) .
So we could watch the little cursor blink , I guess .
Meanwhile , the IT department was kicked into panic mode .
They were tasked with running over to Redmond and sitting on Gates ' head until MS delivered something that did n't stink .
Meanwhile , for about 3 months , that damned machine just sat on my desk next to my Mac , taking up room , winking its stupid cursor at me .
At about this time , Linux passed the 1.0 kernel version and started to look interesting .
I requested the requisite authorizations and installed it on the useless Dell .
I never looked back .
I could log on to any of the engineering systems through X Windows and ( thanks to a Citrix app ) eventually access MS Office apps hosted on remote NT servers .
Until I left in 2003 ( when they transferred engineering to their overseas units ) I ran Linux on my desktop .
So , thanks Microsoft .
I you 'd have had a viable GUI back then , I 'd probably still be sitting in front of it reading PowerPoint presentations ( the only thing the remains of our engineering group uses ) innstead of running my own engineering firm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember Windows.
Back when I used to work for a little fly-by-night aerospace firm just down the road from Microsoft.
We (engineering) were all using Macs for our 'productivity' applications.
Serious work was done on VAX and various flavors of UNIX on mainframes/minis.
It was the mid-90's.
Windows had already been 'released' through version 3, but our IT department still considered it to be a joke.
Unfortunately, someone in corporate had already drank the Microsoft Koolaide.
The order was issued: We're going to become a Windows company.
A cost justification was prepared, comparing a typical Mac, populated with every possible document/spreadsheet/database application to a bare bones DOS box.
No Windows, no apps.
Nothing but a C:&gt; prompt.
The DOS box won (go figure) and we all figured that the fix was in.
The IT folks, under orders from management, started delivering empty DOS machines to our desks (Dells).
So we could watch the little cursor blink, I guess.
Meanwhile, the IT department was kicked into panic mode.
They were tasked with running over to Redmond and sitting on Gates' head until MS delivered something that didn't stink.
Meanwhile, for about 3 months, that damned machine just sat on my desk next to my Mac, taking up room, winking its  stupid cursor at me.
At about this time, Linux passed the 1.0 kernel version and started to look interesting.
I requested the requisite authorizations and installed it on the useless Dell.
I never looked back.
I could log on to any of the engineering systems through X Windows and (thanks to a Citrix app) eventually access MS Office apps hosted on remote NT servers.
Until I left in 2003 (when they transferred engineering to their overseas units) I ran Linux on my desktop.
So, thanks Microsoft.
I you'd have had a viable GUI back then, I'd probably still be sitting in front of it reading PowerPoint presentations (the only thing the remains of our engineering group uses) innstead of running my own engineering firm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416900</id>
	<title>25 years and only 7 versions?</title>
	<author>coofercat</author>
	<datestamp>1268163060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1985: Windows 1.0<br>2010: Windows 7</p><p>1 release every 3.5 years? At that sort of rate you'd think they'd be completely bug free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>PS. Article is in 3 pages that will take you about 3.5 years to read, and another 3.5 regretting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1985 : Windows 1.02010 : Windows 71 release every 3.5 years ?
At that sort of rate you 'd think they 'd be completely bug free ; - ) PS .
Article is in 3 pages that will take you about 3.5 years to read , and another 3.5 regretting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1985: Windows 1.02010: Windows 71 release every 3.5 years?
At that sort of rate you'd think they'd be completely bug free ;-)PS.
Article is in 3 pages that will take you about 3.5 years to read, and another 3.5 regretting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419786</id>
	<title>Ray Ozzie?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ray Ozzie didn't join Microsoft until 2005.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray Ozzie did n't join Microsoft until 2005 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray Ozzie didn't join Microsoft until 2005.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418196</id>
	<title>the product manager who finally got Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268125320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; "the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door"</p><p>Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft engineers had nothing to do with it. He wrote it all by himself and shipped it.</p><p>The quoted phrase pretty much sums up what's wrong with the vast majority of tech companies (including Microsoft) -- they're no longer engineer-centric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; " the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door " Yeah , I 'm sure Microsoft engineers had nothing to do with it .
He wrote it all by himself and shipped it.The quoted phrase pretty much sums up what 's wrong with the vast majority of tech companies ( including Microsoft ) -- they 're no longer engineer-centric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; "the product manager who finally got Windows 1.0 out the door"Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft engineers had nothing to do with it.
He wrote it all by himself and shipped it.The quoted phrase pretty much sums up what's wrong with the vast majority of tech companies (including Microsoft) -- they're no longer engineer-centric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422026</id>
	<title>Re:Shoulda been Xenix</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1268145780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead, Xenix went on to become SCO Unix. I believe this was the first version of Unix that ran on generic PC hardware. Linux appeared a couple of years later. SCO and Linux went on to have a somewhat rocky relationship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , Xenix went on to become SCO Unix .
I believe this was the first version of Unix that ran on generic PC hardware .
Linux appeared a couple of years later .
SCO and Linux went on to have a somewhat rocky relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, Xenix went on to become SCO Unix.
I believe this was the first version of Unix that ran on generic PC hardware.
Linux appeared a couple of years later.
SCO and Linux went on to have a somewhat rocky relationship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417044</id>
	<title>Re:Different, new types of GUI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268163660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>would love to see a brand new concepts</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean like iPhone OS? Call the iPad a gimmick if you want, but it does bring with it a brand new concept on human-computer interaction. One that I feel will carry over into traditional keyboard/mouse computing in the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>would love to see a brand new conceptsYou mean like iPhone OS ?
Call the iPad a gimmick if you want , but it does bring with it a brand new concept on human-computer interaction .
One that I feel will carry over into traditional keyboard/mouse computing in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would love to see a brand new conceptsYou mean like iPhone OS?
Call the iPad a gimmick if you want, but it does bring with it a brand new concept on human-computer interaction.
One that I feel will carry over into traditional keyboard/mouse computing in the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418318</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone remember reversie?</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1268125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I liked Renegade myself, though that was a little later (early 90's)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked Renegade myself , though that was a little later ( early 90 's )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked Renegade myself, though that was a little later (early 90's)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421710</id>
	<title>Re:Shoulda been Xenix</title>
	<author>garethjrowlands</author>
	<datestamp>1268143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They don't want mouse clicks in the same event queue as disk and network I/O.  Windows is a bullshit design and it will never be adequate.</p></div><p>Back end data centre applications *don't* have mouse clicks in the same 'event queue' as disk and network I/O - even on Windows. Single-threaded GUI app, sure. But not server-based applications. Services and web apps don't even have message pumps to pick up mouse clicks. Windows messages do sometimes turn up in places where you'd not expect but it's nothing that'd make it 'inadequate'.

There are of course plenty of other reasons why one might reasonably choose another OS for your data centre but mixing mouse clicks and I/O isn't one of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't want mouse clicks in the same event queue as disk and network I/O .
Windows is a bullshit design and it will never be adequate.Back end data centre applications * do n't * have mouse clicks in the same 'event queue ' as disk and network I/O - even on Windows .
Single-threaded GUI app , sure .
But not server-based applications .
Services and web apps do n't even have message pumps to pick up mouse clicks .
Windows messages do sometimes turn up in places where you 'd not expect but it 's nothing that 'd make it 'inadequate' .
There are of course plenty of other reasons why one might reasonably choose another OS for your data centre but mixing mouse clicks and I/O is n't one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't want mouse clicks in the same event queue as disk and network I/O.
Windows is a bullshit design and it will never be adequate.Back end data centre applications *don't* have mouse clicks in the same 'event queue' as disk and network I/O - even on Windows.
Single-threaded GUI app, sure.
But not server-based applications.
Services and web apps don't even have message pumps to pick up mouse clicks.
Windows messages do sometimes turn up in places where you'd not expect but it's nothing that'd make it 'inadequate'.
There are of course plenty of other reasons why one might reasonably choose another OS for your data centre but mixing mouse clicks and I/O isn't one of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419130</id>
	<title>Re:ancient history</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1268129280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone but Microsoft management, of course. Managers steered the ship ever more steadily to the dark side, building on their success with monopoly-abusing deals and secret contracts with the OEMs. Ship a CPU, pay for Windows whether you use it or not.</p> </div><p>Bill Gates was an aggressive businessman which probably helped. And yea, that was the age of the AARD code, named after the programmer who wrote it, that tried to detect non-MS DOS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone but Microsoft management , of course .
Managers steered the ship ever more steadily to the dark side , building on their success with monopoly-abusing deals and secret contracts with the OEMs .
Ship a CPU , pay for Windows whether you use it or not .
Bill Gates was an aggressive businessman which probably helped .
And yea , that was the age of the AARD code , named after the programmer who wrote it , that tried to detect non-MS DOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone but Microsoft management, of course.
Managers steered the ship ever more steadily to the dark side, building on their success with monopoly-abusing deals and secret contracts with the OEMs.
Ship a CPU, pay for Windows whether you use it or not.
Bill Gates was an aggressive businessman which probably helped.
And yea, that was the age of the AARD code, named after the programmer who wrote it, that tried to detect non-MS DOS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418952</id>
	<title>Re:I never could get it load on my Timex-Sinclair</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268128440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You know, I never could get it to load on my Timex Sinclair, but then, nobody needs more than 640k of RAM, right?<br></i><br>The TS-1000 had 4k of memory, expandible to 16k with that brick you stuck on the back; I had one. The IBM-PC is the one with a maximum of 640K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I never could get it to load on my Timex Sinclair , but then , nobody needs more than 640k of RAM , right ? The TS-1000 had 4k of memory , expandible to 16k with that brick you stuck on the back ; I had one .
The IBM-PC is the one with a maximum of 640K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I never could get it to load on my Timex Sinclair, but then, nobody needs more than 640k of RAM, right?The TS-1000 had 4k of memory, expandible to 16k with that brick you stuck on the back; I had one.
The IBM-PC is the one with a maximum of 640K.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31435664</id>
	<title>Windows was made?</title>
	<author>VulpesFoxnik</author>
	<datestamp>1268301840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows was made?</p><p>I just assumed it congealed somewhere in the C:\temp folder in dos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows was made ? I just assumed it congealed somewhere in the C : \ temp folder in dos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows was made?I just assumed it congealed somewhere in the C:\temp folder in dos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418540</id>
	<title>Re:Ah The Good Ol' Days</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268126760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I remember an early version of Windows (Maybe 2?) on a PC at a university where my dad taught. It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple's ProDOS. Not much more than a file shell, really.</i></p><p>Perhaps it was just a file shell. I never had experience with Apple's ProDOS, but MS-DOS 6 came with an app called DOSSHELL which did sorta kinda look like an early Windows; I don't remember exactly when I bought 6.2, but I bought it to double my forty meg drive with its included tech they stole from Stac.</p><p>I rather liked that shell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember an early version of Windows ( Maybe 2 ?
) on a PC at a university where my dad taught .
It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple 's ProDOS .
Not much more than a file shell , really.Perhaps it was just a file shell .
I never had experience with Apple 's ProDOS , but MS-DOS 6 came with an app called DOSSHELL which did sorta kinda look like an early Windows ; I do n't remember exactly when I bought 6.2 , but I bought it to double my forty meg drive with its included tech they stole from Stac.I rather liked that shell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember an early version of Windows (Maybe 2?
) on a PC at a university where my dad taught.
It was kind of crappy -- looked sort of like Apple's ProDOS.
Not much more than a file shell, really.Perhaps it was just a file shell.
I never had experience with Apple's ProDOS, but MS-DOS 6 came with an app called DOSSHELL which did sorta kinda look like an early Windows; I don't remember exactly when I bought 6.2, but I bought it to double my forty meg drive with its included tech they stole from Stac.I rather liked that shell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417072</id>
	<title>XTree, Norton Commander, PC Valet, etc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268163780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure when NC actually came out, but I remember using several filemanagers back when I started (Windows 2.1 and MS-DOS 3.3).  I remember a very nice little filemanager called PC Valet, and eventually also one called Stereo Shell that I used to almost live in.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure when NC actually came out , but I remember using several filemanagers back when I started ( Windows 2.1 and MS-DOS 3.3 ) .
I remember a very nice little filemanager called PC Valet , and eventually also one called Stereo Shell that I used to almost live in .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure when NC actually came out, but I remember using several filemanagers back when I started (Windows 2.1 and MS-DOS 3.3).
I remember a very nice little filemanager called PC Valet, and eventually also one called Stereo Shell that I used to almost live in.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418794</id>
	<title>Re:Why would anyone buy Windows before 95?</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1268127720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3.1 came with my first x86 computer.  Besides, it was easier for my family members to pick up on than the DOS prompt, and the computer came with a Win16 version of MS Works and some other worthwhile apps.</p><p>I was coming from an 8-bit Apple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// background, so (despite the horrid instability), the whole shebang was quite an upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3.1 came with my first x86 computer .
Besides , it was easier for my family members to pick up on than the DOS prompt , and the computer came with a Win16 version of MS Works and some other worthwhile apps.I was coming from an 8-bit Apple // background , so ( despite the horrid instability ) , the whole shebang was quite an upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.1 came with my first x86 computer.
Besides, it was easier for my family members to pick up on than the DOS prompt, and the computer came with a Win16 version of MS Works and some other worthwhile apps.I was coming from an 8-bit Apple // background, so (despite the horrid instability), the whole shebang was quite an upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422708</id>
	<title>Re:ancient history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268152620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By the way, if anyone has an unmodified copy of Win3.10 (not 3.11) USER.EXE, shoot me an email.  I've lost some of my ancient archives and would like to snag some of the resources in that file.</p></div><p>but... but... but wouldn't that file be (c) Microsoft?!?</p><p>I'm assuming you already have the file, there are a couple of every-Windows-version-ever-Collection-DVD sets out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , if anyone has an unmodified copy of Win3.10 ( not 3.11 ) USER.EXE , shoot me an email .
I 've lost some of my ancient archives and would like to snag some of the resources in that file.but... but... but would n't that file be ( c ) Microsoft ? !
? I 'm assuming you already have the file , there are a couple of every-Windows-version-ever-Collection-DVD sets out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, if anyone has an unmodified copy of Win3.10 (not 3.11) USER.EXE, shoot me an email.
I've lost some of my ancient archives and would like to snag some of the resources in that file.but... but... but wouldn't that file be (c) Microsoft?!
?I'm assuming you already have the file, there are a couple of every-Windows-version-ever-Collection-DVD sets out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31436170</id>
	<title>Re:I still have a copy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268310600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I never saw the point of Dosshell. It came out *after* Windows 2.0. If you ask me, if was a lot of wasted time and effort, that would have been better spent improving Windows. Then again... according to the summary:<br>"Windows 1.0 was vaporware, mocked both outside and inside of Microsoft &mdash; and that its immediate successors were considered stopgaps until OS/2 was everywhere"<br>Which is exactly what happened. Windows is dead, only the Windows api still lives. And everyone is using OS/2 in the form of the Windows NT line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I never saw the point of Dosshell .
It came out * after * Windows 2.0 .
If you ask me , if was a lot of wasted time and effort , that would have been better spent improving Windows .
Then again... according to the summary : " Windows 1.0 was vaporware , mocked both outside and inside of Microsoft    and that its immediate successors were considered stopgaps until OS/2 was everywhere " Which is exactly what happened .
Windows is dead , only the Windows api still lives .
And everyone is using OS/2 in the form of the Windows NT line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I never saw the point of Dosshell.
It came out *after* Windows 2.0.
If you ask me, if was a lot of wasted time and effort, that would have been better spent improving Windows.
Then again... according to the summary:"Windows 1.0 was vaporware, mocked both outside and inside of Microsoft — and that its immediate successors were considered stopgaps until OS/2 was everywhere"Which is exactly what happened.
Windows is dead, only the Windows api still lives.
And everyone is using OS/2 in the form of the Windows NT line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421812</id>
	<title>Re:ancient history</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1268144040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You want the 'allwin' torrent IIRC.
</p><p>
It has every version of windows from 1 to XP.
</p><p>
There may be an update with Vista and 7.
</p><p>
I haven't looked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want the 'allwin ' torrent IIRC .
It has every version of windows from 1 to XP .
There may be an update with Vista and 7 .
I have n't looked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You want the 'allwin' torrent IIRC.
It has every version of windows from 1 to XP.
There may be an update with Vista and 7.
I haven't looked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422440</id>
	<title>Re:Oi woz there</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1268150280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.</p></div><p>Absurd. The origins of the Windows we use today began <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave\_Cutler#Windows\_NT" title="wikipedia.org">as a project at DEC in the Summer of '88.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.Absurd .
The origins of the Windows we use today began as a project at DEC in the Summer of '88 .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.Absurd.
The origins of the Windows we use today began as a project at DEC in the Summer of '88.
[wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062</id>
	<title>Anyone remember reversie?</title>
	<author>coreolyn</author>
	<datestamp>1268163720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I spelled that right, but anyway, Microsoft did manage to unload a boatload of V1.0 on the Navy at the least. I remember playing with it on the 286's the military had no clue what to do with. Instead of the infamous solitaire game it use to have reversie - a digital version of the othello game.</p><p>Even years late I was still happier with DOS 6.1 and Quarterdeck memory/application management.  It was the only way to go to host a BBS and still have a little room to work on it while it was up.</p><p>Ah the good 'ol days when I was considered a genius simply because I did my own memory upgrades to my Tandy 1000...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I spelled that right , but anyway , Microsoft did manage to unload a boatload of V1.0 on the Navy at the least .
I remember playing with it on the 286 's the military had no clue what to do with .
Instead of the infamous solitaire game it use to have reversie - a digital version of the othello game.Even years late I was still happier with DOS 6.1 and Quarterdeck memory/application management .
It was the only way to go to host a BBS and still have a little room to work on it while it was up.Ah the good 'ol days when I was considered a genius simply because I did my own memory upgrades to my Tandy 1000.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I spelled that right, but anyway, Microsoft did manage to unload a boatload of V1.0 on the Navy at the least.
I remember playing with it on the 286's the military had no clue what to do with.
Instead of the infamous solitaire game it use to have reversie - a digital version of the othello game.Even years late I was still happier with DOS 6.1 and Quarterdeck memory/application management.
It was the only way to go to host a BBS and still have a little room to work on it while it was up.Ah the good 'ol days when I was considered a genius simply because I did my own memory upgrades to my Tandy 1000...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417208</id>
	<title>Re:To be fair...</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1268164380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 (compression, file management, image viewers, etc, etc...) Windows has gone down dramatically.</p></div><p>Especially because back then, you still needed MS-DOS to run underneath Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 ( compression , file management , image viewers , etc , etc... ) Windows has gone down dramatically.Especially because back then , you still needed MS-DOS to run underneath Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 (compression, file management, image viewers, etc, etc...) Windows has gone down dramatically.Especially because back then, you still needed MS-DOS to run underneath Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417864</id>
	<title>You missed Windows NT</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1268167320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NT was a solid OS. Then they let the hardware vendors back into ring 0 so that games would run faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NT was a solid OS .
Then they let the hardware vendors back into ring 0 so that games would run faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NT was a solid OS.
Then they let the hardware vendors back into ring 0 so that games would run faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417554</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31425202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31428440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31424266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31436170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31449784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31423088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1652254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31428440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31425202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417806
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422334
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419442
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419688
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31424266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418616
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31449784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31424024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31421710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31436170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31423088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31422440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31420922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31419092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31418540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31417144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1652254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1652254.31416962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
