Xiaofan Chen 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.
>> =

>> 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. =


He probably used it because it's common in certain contexts.

It originated in an environment where 2k3 didn't mean 2300 -- 2k3 didn't
have a meaning for most sys admins before Win2k3 meant "Windows 2003".
It is an extension of Win2k meaning "Windows 2000". Writing Win2k003
wouldn't really make sense, abbreviation-wise.

Neither meaning is really standard. Both have their domain of common use
where they make sense to the people that use them.

Gerhard

-- =

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