On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Steve Willoughby<steve@alchemy.com> wrote:
> James Newton wrote:
>> - Windows 2k3 compatible: NO! I will NOT run *nix / LAMP. I respect anyo=
ne
>> who can, I can't. Don't ask the pig to fly.
>
> 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"? =A0I'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 =3D=3D 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?
>

I actually agree with you. I do not know why James use
Windows 2k3 instead of 2003. Maybe to save typing one
character.


-- =

Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

-- =

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