Do you prefer the 3.5 or the 3.0 weapon size rules?

A different thread got me wondering how popular the 3.5 weapon size rules were. I remember it was a bone of contention back when 3.5 was new, but I personally preferred the newer version. How about you?
I'm asking what version you prefer, not necessarily what version you use, if any.

I personally prefer the new version. I like the greater variety of possible weapons, and I don't find the 3.5e system to be more complex than the 3.0 version.

I like the new style. Makes it easier to figure out weapons for exotic size categories.

Demiurge out.

3.5 works better in actual play.

I definately prefer the newer rules for fantasy play. They make more sense in a world where smaller and larger races craft their own weapons.

I'd still stick to 3.0 rules in modern games though. They work better for mass-produced, machine made weapons like firearms.

The 3.5 one.

3.5, definately, for the reasons arscott stated earlier.

EVeryone keeps saying 3.5, but the votes are almost balanced. Could someone from the 3.0 crowed give us his reasoning?

I prefer the 3.5 version on a philosophical level. However, I'm not fond of a couple of the implementation details:

1) Small missile weapons don't have the range increment reduced, when logically they would.

2) Small characters suffer both a Strength penalty and a damage reduction due to the size of their weapons. Consequently, Small warrior-types really don't seem like a viable character option (in a standard, reasonably-optimised group). Actually, my preferred fix for that is to get rid of the Strength penalty for Halflings and Gnomes (no adjustments for Halflings, +2 Con/-2 Wis for Gnomes), but that's another topic.

3) The rules for weapon equivalencies by size (from the DMG) should almost be standard, except that they only fit for some weapons. I can see that a small longsword is not the same as a medium shortsword, but perhaps a small longbow is the same as a medium shortbow?

I prefer the 3.5 ones...