> > ... the actual amount of code which would have to be rewritten
> > (to fix Y2K problems) would be very, very small,
> > and that he already knows exactly where it is.
>
> Changing code from 2-digit year values to 4-digit is one of the
> smaller parts of the Y2K problem. Larger parts include handling
> existing data with 2-digit year fields, finding the damn source
> code, and figuring out how to deal with that foot-thick deck of
> cards containing hex patches that were applied to the executable
> file fifteen years ago.
Not to mention getting the compilers, assemblers, and the rest of the
historical support system needed to work on that code.
And yes, dealing with the rather large sets of historical data -- do
you convert them all now to new media? Do you allow dual formats? Or
what?
> I once did a back-of-the-envelope analysis of a system that I
> wrote that was seriously Y2K-deficient. Leaving out the bits
> '00011001' (19 in packed decimal) everywhere they would have
> occurred in dates saved three times as much in storage costs
> as the entire development cost of the system. We're talking
I have read and heard of similar conclusions.
> here about a state-of-the-art IBM 2314 disk storage system,
> approximately the size of five large refrigerators placed
> side-by-side, costing about $1.25 million in today's dollars,
> and storing 240MB. Not GB, MB. It never occurred to me that
> the program would still be in use 32 years later, and it
> wasn't, but it made it to 25 years.
Rather amazing what we have done. I think it not so much the
technology, though, as the CONFIDENCE management needed before they
committed the dollars to develop the technology. If it was not the
extreme needs of the space program and the military, I doubt if we would
have ventured this far into the future at this point. Management just
didn't think integrated circuitry was better than transistors for
then-current applications. IBM didn't want to move off tabulating cart
sorters, etc.
CONFIDENCE, and the Willingness to RISK new ventures, is what got us
here, far more than the technical details. Technology we can always
develop. But how many of those scientists and technologists are willing
to even sit down and work out what it would take for them to work for
themselves? Too much risk!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------- IMAGINEERING --------------------------
----------------- Every mouse click, a Vote -------------------
---------- Do they vote For, or Against your pages? -----------
----- What people want: http://www.mall-net.com/se_report/ ----
---------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
