Windows 8 To Be Released In October 2012 337
dkd903 writes "Microsoft has been very secretive about the next version of its Windows operating system. After the success of Windows 7, everyone is very interested in the next iteration – Windows 8. A few leaks have been the only source of news about Windows 8 till now. However, a slip up from Microsoft Netherlands has put the release date in October 2012."
Only one week to go! (Score:2, Funny)
Woot!
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft, despite "the success of Windows 7" cannot get it's friendliest, large enterprise customers to deploy Win 7 in full-scale roll-outs.
Not without grafting free deployments of MDOP (application virtualization solutions) and other "freebie" services of 50-100 K per customer. Not without deprecating XP - to the point it will not be supported in a few months.
They bought showcase deployments that displace XP. IE 6 is still needed for many ERP systems, and that is an incredible problem.
Microsoft is hold
NT 7.0 or NT 8.0? (Score:2)
>>>to deploy Win 7 in full-scale roll-outs.
Why not? In just the brief time I've been using Win7, I've not felt the desire to punch the screen or run the chassis over with a bulldozer. (RIP Vista PC) I also experimented with installing Win7 on a 1/2 gig laptop and it ran quite well. Then I removed the RAM to bring it down to 256k, and it still ran decently (for single tasking). Microsoft did a good job of optimizing the OS for low memory systems.* I think Windows 7 is just as ready for widesca
Re:NT 7.0 or NT 8.0? (Score:5, Interesting)
Try a phased roll-out to 20,000 desktops - with unknown compatibility in 4,000 departmental desktop applications.
You can see the regression issues that make a desktop roll-out of ANY new OS a suicidal risk for any IT organization of size. The answer they are grasping for? Consumerization of IT. Bring your own device, and we'll police connection/identity and document policy.
You see, people have already been bringing in their own Macs and Androids for a couple of years now - and "self servicing". This is how the IBM PC showed up next to the 5250 terminal, 25 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"There are too many legacy dependencies, as well as testing for existing apps that has to happen before they can even being to roll out Windows 7.'
If those nimrods haven't seen the joys of 7's XP Mode, then they should be fired, kicked out of the building, and shot.
50,000 station deployment and NOT ONE SINGLE LEGACY ISSUE.
Because XP Mode uses an ACTUAL XP SERVICE PACK 3 IMAGE.
It's as if nobody pay attention to the features and only focuses on the Windows name.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
++True
XP mode is a virtual machine inside your windows 7 installation. Once installed, the user sees the application no differently than any other app, but when it is launched, it runs seamlessly in the VM.
That would depend on the application. I know of one application I use to work on that was a server, ran in the system tray, provided a GUI interface, and was installed a Windows Service. Guess what? Starting with Windows Vista all services are no longer allowed to have a GUI interface. Good luck integrating that with Vista/7; and I very much doubt it would work well under XP mode too. Why? We had problems with the app under normal WinXP when terminal services was used - guess where the service was told its
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pricing the OS too high is the same mistake the Unices made. It cost them their head.
Re:NT 7.0 or NT 8.0? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mostly because of three things:
1) Many companies (and governments) have glacially slow approval processes for new OSes. My facility would like to move to Windows 7, but there's still no official DoD hardening and approval process for it. Since we're planning to jump over Vista straight to 7 we're on XP till we get official blessing.
2) A *staggering* number of companies still need IE6 for various internal web apps. A little hunting will turn up companies still selling solutions that require IE6 right now, as XP runs down the clock on even security support. Someone must be buying this crap, though I can't imagine who or why. I don't know which is worse, that Microsoft made IE6 so standards incompatible that this happened in the first place, or that they then immediately reversed course and left all these standard's non-compliant apps hanging. (Though at this point the companies still using them have no one to blame but themselves, XPs retirement schedule has been public for a good long time).
3) A lot of companies just don't feel the need. XP has the distinction of being probably the first Microsoft OS that really worked so well that there's not a lot of compelling reasons to upgrade it (besides its support clock running down). DirectX 10 is mostly unimportant to business, and the rest of Vista and 7's improvements can often be matched by just installing 3rd party software on XP (which many businesses did long before 7 was available). There's some really nice functions in the newest version of AD, but so far MS hasn't allowed XP-AD integration to break.
I suspect the only thing that will actually force companies to upgrade will be XP finally becoming completely unsupported. Even then I wouldn't be shocked to see a lot of companies jump to Vista instead of 7 on the theory that it's been around longer and is therefore better supported.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
in a VM that only has access to the company Intranet
You wish.
Limited to old hardware though because of drivers (Score:3, Interesting)
A few years ago (2006 or 2007) I built a new PC for myself and tried to run it under Win2k at first. Which I still consider a perfectly good system, feature-wise.
But I could not get the damn thing to run stable, despite quality components. I suspect the graphics card driver, because the manufacturer (MSI) did not provide any up to date Win2K drivers anymore. I had the choice between a pretty old Win2k driver or running the XP driver. Both would install, but the PC had a tendency to crash a few times per eve
Track record as I remember it, in chronolog. order (Score:3, Informative)
MS Track Record..
Win 3.1 (It apparently worked but it was basically a colourful clown suit for DOS)
By today's standards it was pathetic. I don't remember much of it, but what I remember was on the same quality level as Win95 later. Of course there was not much affordable competition back then (UNIX licenses were really expensive), so its success was deserved on some level.
Windows NT 3.1 Had a reputation as pretty solid, user interface was much like Win 3.1. That's all I can say.
Win95 (Its was Just Broken.. Big Improvement over Win3.1 but still It was just broken)
Yes. GUI was nicer than Win 3.1, but it was just as unreliable...
Windows NT 4.0 Windows 95 user interface but waaay more stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only one week to go! (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand.
The ERP incumbents are guys like ORACLE.
They make SURE that the upgrade path for their ERP front end brings the whole stack. Ten, if not HUNDREDS of millions. So. Not the kind of IT big spend that will be driven, in a down economy, by an IT sub-department's need for Windows licensing.
Trust me, Oracle knows that Windows desktop and MS Office revenue are Microsoft's lifeblood.
By holding off IE-next or FF compatible rendering for Oracle Financials and PeopleSoft, they hit Microsoft where it hurts - core revenues. They also reinforce the perception of Microsoft as a difficult upgrade, and a general poor technology choice.
Larry likes this. There are other vendors, playing this game, too. Some are MS partners, so work th angle with more ambiguity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's absolutely no reason for an enterprise to update to Winbdows 7. Nothing about it would increase productivity, so it's a useless expense.
Microsoft's Windows customers are computer manufacturers (and one or two of us who build gaming machines).
Re: (Score:2)
From the posts below it appears that the article at some point said that the release date was in October 2010 but was quickly corrected to read October 2012. If it was this October it would have to be released sometime in the next week.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the error was from TFA.
This is really a bit over-blown, though. The actual statement from Microsoft was:
Google Translate can’t seem to make up its mind as to whether it me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would place the date in 2013, since Microsoft is notorious for running behind schedule.
And they've never released a new OS in just two years time.
Re: (Score:2)
2012-10 (Score:4, Insightful)
I wager 1,000,000 quatloos that it won't be released that month.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going to make the 'end of the world' joke...damn.
Still ... aren't we supposed to skip every other version of Windows (because they're usually only half-cooked)?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Still ... aren't we supposed to skip every version of Windows (because they're always only half-cooked)?
There. Fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
No, sometimes an odd 3rd version comes out half-cooked too. And it depends greatly on whether or not you count service packs as versions (by SP 3, Windows XP had so many of its original wrinkles ironed out that it can hardly be considered the same version).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't know
Call me cynical, but I think it'll be released then, whether it's ready or not
I think it's a good bet that they want to release at the same time as Ubuntu's next LTS (in October '12) to try and steal their thunder
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's actually going to be released on December 21, 2012, just in time to bring about the end of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what numeric system does 3 == 9?
Re: (Score:2)
I wager 1 quatloo that Kirk will rip his shirt sometime during this episode.
No takers? Oh well.
I guess that's obvious.
Surely they'll come up with a marketing name... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting on "Cthulhu".
Furthermore we should expect the target release date will be postponed for a few months because of bugs... December 2012 sounds about right.
Marduk ? (Score:2)
nope (Score:4, Informative)
Furthermore, Microsoft is of course the next version of Windows. But it will take about two years before “Windows 8 ‘on the market.
Yeah, this is hardly a concrete release date. It's probably one person's very rough estimate, he might not even be close to the project for all we know.
Re:nope (Score:4, Interesting)
The exact same journos are writing that there'll be a 128 bit version as well, demonstrating:
a) Somebody's feeding them horsepoo
b) They really are as clueless as people say.
Re:nope (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a time-honored way to get unique page hits--> speculating about the next Windows release from Microsoft.
The entire piece was so much fluff. Microsoft is scared to death that we'll forget about Windows, and with good reason. At no point in history has Microsoft been this vulnerable. Controlled leaks to the press will be common place. Little rumors about this and that. Then there'll be leaked releases, first looks, and so on. It's the same formula that Microsoft has used for 20+ years.
Let me be the first to say to Microsoft... (Score:2, Insightful)
I want Windows 7.1, not Windows 8.
Windows Vista sucked horribly. Windows 7 fixed some suckage with Windows Vista. But just stop this runaway train and fix all the problems, not just a few with each new Windows version. There's a very good reason why 61% of Windows users still use XP. Give them a reason to want something new. Otherwise, you'll just create more division and confusion by creating another version of Windows that PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually believe that they started using the NT scheme after ME, as the consumer version switched to the NT kernel. So Windows XP = 5, Vista was 6, and Windows 7 is, well, 7. But we could argue about this all day long...
Re:Let me be the first to say to Microsoft... (Score:5, Informative)
Or we can just look at the version numbers in "about"...
XP 64bit & 2003 = 5.2 ...4.0
XP = 5.1
2000 = 5.0
NT 4.0 =
Re: (Score:2)
This does suggest it's actually Windows Vista.1 but version numbers are pretty arbitrary. Still, Windows 8 doesn't have to be a complete rewrite. Simply an update.
Actually, MS has refuted this and told that they only called it a minor update in the version number for backwards compatibility reasons. MS consider Windows 7 a major kernel revision. I'm not sure I do though. I rather consider that move being MS going "Well, this OS is basically Vista architecture-wise, so ensure apps see it as that too if they only look at the major version number". In that sense, Windows 7 is a more "minor" upgrade.
What he means, why should we pay fullprice for an (Score:2)
I think the parent is talking about why MS is trying to get us to buy an upgrade as if it is a new release with all the problems of switching.
Win95 and Win95SE was its upgrade. Windows 98 and Windows 98SE was its upgrade. NOT ME. That was a new release and it showed because it totally changed things.
But should we pay the price of a new release. Even with upgrade discount it is high. Far higher then OSX's point upgrades and of course far more expensive then Ubuntu releases. About a gazillion times more.
An
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is NEEDED in Windows 8.0 that I should buy a license for? Until MS can answer that, they won't be making many sales from people who aren't buying their PC in the shop or must have the latest shiny. That is a LOT of people, but MS has always been a company that burned through cash. They NEED more sales. Vista hurt them bad. Windows 7 was better but not back to old form. I see no reason 8 should change this.
What exactly is needed in windows vista, or 7. Or Ubuntu anything greater than about 6? How about anything newer than OS 10.2? That's why people aren't upgrading. You only upgrade OS's when you buy a new computer. We're at the point where operating systems basically do what they're supposed to properly, and have been for a decade. That is to say, they generally don't crash unless you really torture them (or bad hardware), they generally run programs without getting non- recoverable stuck. Everything
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Far higher then OSX's point upgrades and of course far more expensive then Ubuntu releases. About a gazillion times more.
OS X upgrades typically cost $129. There have been a couple of exceptions to this but the pattern is clear. Windows upgrades typically cost slightly less than than (about $120).
Of course, the cost of a Windows upgrade is largely irrelevant, since the vast, vast bulk of Windows users get new versions of Windows either a) when they buy a new PC or b) when their corporate IT department
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, like perhaps doing something noteworthy with the new release. Not many people want to buy (or even move to, even for free) a new OS that barely does anything that their old one can't. It's simply a waste of time and money for a lot of people, including me.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can fully understand people not wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 due to hardware/driver constraints or program compatibility...but if neither of these things are problems, I say why not? Windows 7 is much more user friendly and easier to navigate (not to mention much more stable and secure, in my experience.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind paying $150 to upgrade to 7 from XP, but having to pay anything to upgrade to 7 from Vista is unacceptable. In fact I think Microsoft should probably pay people in the form of vouchers or edition upgrades when upgrading from Vista to 7. The amount of wasted time due to Vista is real, mesurable and material. I know that there area a lot of ./ers that had no issues with Vista, but I had it on 3 machines (all brand new dells (different machines), pre-installed) and I had all kinds of issues
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Program compatibility is the only real problem we have at our work - everything worked fine under XP so we're slow to upgrade.
However - Dell stopped selling us XP's so now we've got about 40 XP's left before we have to jump to 7.
One of the annoyances is that yes: it will work if you set the application to "XP SP3" in the compatibility mode. Problem is, there's about a dozen applications we have here that require it, so that means every time we do a PC set up that needs to be changed each time. We don't have
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see MS work on virtualization on the app level. This way, a Web browser (or more specifically a Web browser instance) has its own instance of everything in the OS. If the instance gets compromised. malware can happily scribble on the Registry, drop files into SYSTEM32, etc. However, those changes are mapped to a temp directory and as soon as that window is closed, those changes all drop. Of course, saved files that the user wants would be set aside somewhere so they don't get erased on the V
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly what Internet Explorer's Protected Mode does when running on either Vista or Windows 7 with UAC enabled. When Internet Explorer is running in Protected Mode it can only access a small handful of directories and certain registry locations even if the user running it is an administrator.
Microsoft calls applications
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Why fix what is not broken?
I have two PCs at home that run Windows XP. Everything I use them for works flawlessly. They are totally stable and usually have an uptime measured in weeks. A large part of this is probably because I do must of my stuff in the cloud.
Why should I pay $50,$100,$150 to upgrade to Windows 7? What is in it for me?
Now substitute "me' with those other 61% of people. Why should someone upgrade if XP is doing everything they need?
Re: (Score:2)
If your PC is properly protected by a combination of an intelligent user, a firewall, and anti-virus, then security is not an issue.
The other arguments (performance usability) are moot points I addressed in my last comment. XP does everything I need. Why should I pay to upgrade it?
People need to get off the upgrade bandwagon.
Re: (Score:2)
I want Windows for Workgroups 7.11, been waiting on a new version of WfW for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
I want Windows for Workgroups 7.11, been waiting on a new version of WfW for a long time.
While that's obviously a joke, the version of Windows you're looking for is called Windows Enterprise. Stuff like Branchcache and the like are features designed explicitly for workgroup settings. And of course, they're mostly features that exist in a domain environment, hence the enhanced price tag when foregoing Windows Server ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why they would go and release a whole new version when 7 isn't a flop like Vista. Seriously, the mainstream support for Windows 7 is still for another 4 years and the extended support is 9.
What will be accomplished in Windows 8 that a simple Service Pack couldn't fix - and what UI elements could they possibly offer thats worth upgrading if I've got windows 7?
Re:Let me be the first to say to Microsoft... (Score:4, Informative)
RE: What will be accomplished in Windows 8 that a simple Service Pack couldn't fix"
Profits!
Re: (Score:2)
New releases = fat, greasy wads of cash
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, MS for practical reasons limits the amount of functionality that they're willing to add to the OS after it's been released. Which means that it can be quite a challenge to add support for some things later on, and without any profit motive for doing it either.
I'm pers
Apple approach is not to alienate customers (Score:3, Interesting)
Businesses, hardware buyers A.K.A. Microsoft's installed customer base, only make software changes when absolutely FORCED to.
I was working at a financial services firm which still had O/S2 boxes handling their fax communications YEARS after IBM has stopped selling O/S2. Its called "If it ain't #$^ing broke, don't #$^ing fix it!" As long as the hardware/software could handle (send/receive/OCR faxes, it was going to stay inviolate. For all I know, the machines are still there, chugging away...
Windows buyers,
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing bugs and releasing free service packs is work without profit. Releasing flashy new versions that cost hundreds of dollars, but are shoddily designed, is profitable. Make it full of bugs and people will be happy to pay for an upgrade, too.
Re: (Score:3)
You clearly haven't had the pleasure of watching MS add layers of idiocy onto DOS.
Dave Cutler is the only guy MS ever employed to write a new OS, the rest were hired to plaster over the old ones.
Re:Let me be the first to say to Microsoft... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, this isn't a bad idea IMHO. They could use Windows 7 as a base for incremental improvements for some time. It's rare for MS to get as many things right as there after all is in Windows 7, so why not make carefully move from there?
People may say "but where's the money in that!", but if 7.1, 7.2, etc would still be paid for, and more often than the major releases, people might be *more* willing to upgrade since they'd know that they wouldn't get something huge at once, and maybe even use the old rule of wanting to wait for the first service pack. Less such risks with smaller updates. Also, smaller updates would be able to be more frequently released, and they could compensate for this somewhat by selling them for less.
If this all sounds wild & crazy -- Apple is pretty successful with their systems, and they've been doing exactly this since OS X 10.0...
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I want 7.1 not 8
Microsoft is trying to catch-up to Mac OS 10... um. Where are we now? 10.60? No, no that's opera. Maybe its 10.11? Nah that's Ubuntu. Ahhh forget it.
BTW Windows 7 isn't really 7.0.
It's NT 6.1 so what you desire
is 6.2 (+0.1 bugfix).
Ugh. My head hurts.
Re: (Score:2)
If windows was like opera, you wouldn't be able to run 3rd party applications until Windows 11. You'd be stuck with notepad, paint, and solitaire until then.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is, due to Windows' ubiquity, people don't realize that Windows isn't what they want. It's simply what they are used to.
Plus, many people are so afraid of "breaking their computer" that they don't dare change much on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I like to sum it up as "Vista was the alpha release of Windows 7" (or alternatively "Windows 7 is Vista SP1")
Re: (Score:2)
What caused people to hate Vista wasn't Microsoft. It was third party software and hardware makers who were too lazy to get release-quality drivers out. Instead, they put out alpha or beta drivers, and told the customers to blame the blue-screens on Microsoft. These are the same developers who put out pages and pages of blogs lambasting UAC and whining how they actually had to separate user and admin privs... just like how UNIX developers have been doing for over 30 years.
There were a few valid complaint
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
its human psychology
people were expecting great things with vista, and it was just meh. since reality was lower than expectation, vista therefore sucked horribly
meanwhile, people weren't expecting anything from windows 7, and it was decent, so therefore its a good os
you see the same thing with movies: movies with massive hype that are just ok, like the matrix sequels, are therefore horribly sucky. the star wars prequels as well: these are just mediocre movies. if episodes 4,5,6 never existed, episodes 1,2,3
Re: (Score:2)
Since you asked... in my case, aside from the driver issues which really messed up all of my DVD playing/ripping software, the biggest headache was with Windows Explorer.
I hit START+E and explorer launches, no problem. Except, the address bar at the top of the screen starts filling in from left to right, and I realise that it's scanning my disk. Again. And I can't really do anything until it's finished counting the seven folders I have in the root of my drive.
If I'm moving files from one directory to anothe
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much the biggest issue it had. After the peripheral, really, printer manufacturers ramped up support, vista was fine. Especially after SP1.
What vista had was the diesel-in-america problem. Everyone remembers the horrible GM diesels or smokey semi diesels and now it's almost impossible to sell a consumer car in the states equipped with one. An oem install of vista sp1 is as stable as anything but I still had people banging down my door to pay extra for a machine with XP downgrade license.
Re: (Score:2)
In the early days if you got it on a new system built with Vista in mind it wasn't bad. The problems came with all those that tried to upgrade had issues getting drivers for hardware, software that ran just fine on XP was having problems, and it forced people who were sitting on almost 10 year old computers to have to buy new ones to be able to run it.
It was worse than that. Companies were selling brand spanking new computers with insufficient resources, badly written drivers, etc as "Vista Ready" or even with Vista preinstalled. Got a brand new HP laptop for my wife about four-six months after Vista release (I don't remember exactly), it was terrible. It wouldn't do anything that even looked like 3d graphics. It came with a gig of RAM that I immediately upgrade to two gigs, and it was still a dog. It wouldn't even play World of Warcraft, which was
Re: (Score:2)
And we would have an OS made in 2001 being patched and repatched.
Apple does not support OS 9 anymore. IBM doesn't sell new copies of AIX 5L or 4.3. Oracle supports Solaris 8, but one isn't going to use anything but Solaris 10 for a modern deployment. Microsoft had to move on, because XP has so many issues, and MS had to have an OS to deal with security issues of 2010, not 2001.
In 2001, Web browsers were not the primary focus of blackhats. Instead, getting people to run executables via E-mail and remote
End is nigh! (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah right... (Score:2)
How about that's when they first slip the delivery date?
Well, of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone??? Interested??? (Score:4, Funny)
everyone is very interested in the next iteration
You keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Wait, what?? (Score:4, Funny)
"Two years from now means October 2012. If this is correct and Windows 8 is supposed to be released In October 2010, we should see the first beta in early 2012"
From the link from the article..
Better translation (Score:5, Informative)
Correctly translates to:
I'm dutch. The translation was engrish, i thought this might help.
FFS Read TFA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did "about" suddenly become a definite statement of a release time frame??
This is slashdot, you should know it means for very small values of "about". Geez, who let this guy in? :P
Re: (Score:2)
So, 2012 (Score:4, Funny)
Trick or Trick (Score:2)
October you say? How apropos.
Windows 8 Codename... (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
'95 Gates sees the light. '99 he's killed Netscape (Score:3, Interesting)
The push to the internet was over ("I've got email, right?") but the web got started in 1995 while Gates was the hands-on leader of Microsoft.
Gates got Microsoft turned around from a "navel gazing" OS and software development/stealing/buying/killing company(1) into a web facing company "on a dime!"
He saw the threat of his OS and Office apps marginalization because he'd been doing the same kind of shit to his "competition" since 1986.
In comparison Balmer is the janitor who's in charge of turning out the ligh
This Article/ news sucks (Score:2)
Here's the basic summary:
- Some website guy found an article from the Netherlands branch of Microsoft which conjectured Windows next version will be released in ABOUT two years.
I could have told you that.
Not news; guessing.
This was expected (Score:2)
Even though no information has been released yet, I would expect to see something in the next 2 years. That would put Windows 7 at 3 years old. If we don't see a release, we should be seeing some betas by then. They will not wait 5 years again like they did from XP to Vista and the Vista to Win 7 timeline was 3 years.
WHAT happened to windows 7 ?!?!?!?!?! (Score:2)
in 2012 (Score:2)
everyone will be playing Call of Duty: Caracas on their 3D monitors and complaining on slashdot about the lack of linux support for their Kinect microsoft gesture devices
because the only thing lamer and more tired than predicting microsoft's survival, is predicting microsoft's imminent demise
just before the Mayan apocalypse (Score:2)
Faster on same hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fat fingers!
That's a pretty big finger, or I guess it could have been typed on the keypad.
Re: (Score:2)