Searching \ for '[OT] Windows 2k3?? (was Re: [OT] PICList.com serve' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Windows 2k3?? (was Re: [OT] PICList.com serve'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Windows 2k3?? (was Re: [OT] PICList.com serve'
2009\07\18@020616 by Steve Willoughby

flavicon
face
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

2009\07\18@031148 by solarwind

picon face
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Steve Willoughby<spam_OUTsteveTakeThisOuTspamalchemy.com> wrote:
> 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?

I would assume that 2k3 means 2000 (2k) + 3 = 2003.

Also, windows is fale in general. There is no excuse (ever) for a
server to run windows. Desktop, ok, I can agree that some apps require
windows and some people prefer the snappiness and look and feel of the
desktop. But that excuse doesn't work on a server. Linux/Unix is far
more efficient and reliable in the server world. Random note: I have a
low power BSD server in my house with an uptime of over 7 years.

2009\07\18@051141 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Steve Willoughby<.....steveKILLspamspam@spam@alchemy.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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?
>

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

2009\07\18@100723 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
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"?  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?
>
> 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

2009\07\18@104657 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Gerhard
Fiedler<listsspamKILLspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>

I see. Googling "Win2k3" indeed leads to many hits which refer to
Windows 2003.

I am not into any server thingy, be it Windows or Linux. So I do
not have the domain knowledge. Thanks for the explanations.


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...