Yolanda wrote:
>Well, Bernie, first there's some details, it's not 990909 but 99999 that is
>a special stop code of some sort, that detail I've not bothered to
>store. That was why a lot of half-thinking people went out of sorts on the
>ninth day of the nineth month of nineteen-ninety-nine. But as you can see,
>that date isn't 99999 but 19990909, a much different number.
Yes, the explanation is highly illogical why any problems would arise. And
can someone explain to me how the date can affect what happens in the
program anyway? These are two very diffrent things. (Otherwise you would
need to wait until such a year comes by before you can stop - and it never
will).
>As to Y2K, the issue is what will various computers in verious essential
>positions running utility companies and financial accounts do when they get
>two incongrous dates, 2000 and 1972 or 1986 or 1900 depending on the
>machine? will they crash? Will they ignore it and just blithely spit out
>things in the wrong date? What if it's my bank account and it now says I
>had started my account in 1972 but now it's 1901 and has time
>reversed? How does it calculate interest back seventy years? Does it
>subtract money?
The "normal" way of getting the date is:
real_year = base_year + reported_year
Only if stored as a string (or array of chars whatever you prefer) will
"19" be hardcoded into programs (this is the only problem as I see it).
(BTW: This includes if the date is returned as 1999 directly and then
recalulateded)
>These are the sorts of concerns with Y2K and the reason it's less of an
>issue is that it's been high time and more most of these establishments
>upgraded and so most have indeed done that, put out the cash and bought
>newer and more capable systems with millenium ready clocks. Many others
>have run various test and found that nothing serious happens. There will
>be places where the computer system conks out, there will be cities who's
>traffic lights no longer co-ordinate, where utility bills come out garbled,
>or where the water or power system fails. These places will have a lot of
>work to fix it, and all manually. it is because of that that people are
>still concerned.
I would like to see how many have "upgraded" to Win98 to get around it.
(Don't ask me how but M$ managed to put a problem in there some way, of
course it's only if it crashes exactly on the change so it isn't any big
problem).
>For me, my bank has upgraded, as has my city and most of the major
>institutions in it (save the health system, best I don't get sick next
>year) and so I am complacent and content to sit back and see what happens.
Hmm... I'm only aware of the telphone company installing new things (needed
partly anyway), health system is secured, water and electricity as well.
And no reports of any problems found (not even in the elevators that would
be such a big problem according to media).
The results that only 4 out of 10 (IIRC) "Y2K experts" would be interested
in beeing onboard an airplane when the new years starts is just ridiculous
- who would want to be on such a place at any new year?
BTW: I saw that the airplanes here would work as well, once again no
reports of any problems found (despite the reports earlier in media and by
"Y2K experts" that they would probably all crash).
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/ DOS programs, Star Wars ...
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
