James Newton wrote:
> - Windows 2k3 compatible: NO! I will NOT run *nix / LAMP. I respect anyone
> who can, I can't. Don't ask the pig to fly.

I'd personally say the opposite, so I understand the sentiment.  I can
respect that.

But on a different topic, am I alone in finding it odd that people (not
picking on you, James, *lots* of people are doing this) are referring to
Windows 2003 as "2k3"?  I'm so used to what I understand as standard
practice meaning 2k3 would be 2300 (with the k taking the place of the
decimal point: 2k3 == 2.3k).

A losing battle, I'm sure, but does anyone else feel we should be
waiting a few centuries before talking about Win 2k3?

steve
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist