MS-Windows 3.11 Y2K patch?
Walt Letkiewicz
Hello friends,
I maintain a dedicated, stand-alone system (appart from my main
system) on which I run various DOS and WIN 3.x apps that, for
whatever reason, do not run happily on WIN 95/98 systems.
On New Year's Day, my hardware and DOS 6.22 environment dates rolled
over to the year 2000. But my WINDOWS 3.11 environment date rolled
over to 1900.
OK, I can't say this was unexpected, and I don't have any
date-critical apps on this system. But...
It would be nice to have the correct date show up on saved files.
Can anyone point me to a patch or a hack to fix this WIN 3.11
Y2K glitch? Do any such things exist?
All suggestions gratefully received, either by post or e-mail.
TIA.
--Walt
PS: Re the thread on using a scrolling mouse with WIN 3.11,
plannet-crafters.com has a very reasonably priced program called
"flywheel" which purports to allow the use of scrolling mice in
3.x operating systems. Someone may have already suggested this,
but I thought I'd throw my $0.02 in while I was here. :-)
Maarten W.G. Andriessen
"Walt Letkiewicz" <wa...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.05.100010...@garcia.efn.org...
>
> Hello friends,
>
> I maintain a dedicated, stand-alone system (appart from my main
> system) on which I run various DOS and WIN 3.x apps that, for
> whatever reason, do not run happily on WIN 95/98 systems.
>
> On New Year's Day, my hardware and DOS 6.22 environment dates rolled
> over to the year 2000. But my WINDOWS 3.11 environment date rolled
> over to 1900.
>
> OK, I can't say this was unexpected, and I don't have any
> date-critical apps on this system. But...
>
> It would be nice to have the correct date show up on saved files.
> Can anyone point me to a patch or a hack to fix this WIN 3.11
> Y2K glitch? Do any such things exist?
>
> All suggestions gratefully received, either by post or e-mail.
The best suggestion would be to switch over to Windows 32 Bit based
applications. It has been FIVE years since the release of Windows 95, and
that must have been long enough to find replacement apps for the ones you
are using now.
There are no patches for DOS or Windows whatsoever. Microsoft officially
stopped support on Windows 3.1 By the beginning of 1998, and that was the
sign for most IT persons, to get rid of everything that even LOOKS like
DOS/Windows 3.1, especially with the Y2K bug coming.
Succes!
Maarten
FitWell
>> over to the year 2000. But my WINDOWS 3.11 environment date rolled
>> over to 1900.
Mine rolled over to January 04, 1980. I merely reset to January 01,
2000 in DOS via 'date' command. No problems there. DOS and Win 3.1
show correct date and have kept showing it correctly since the 1st.
Did you try this by any chance? Or is it that the date won't go to
2000 (??).
>> It would be nice to have the correct date show up on saved files.
>> Can anyone point me to a patch or a hack to fix this WIN 3.11
>> Y2K glitch? Do any such things exist?
The Y2K patch for Win 3x can be found at:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/windows3x/winfile/
(choose the right one for your system as the replacement for the file
manager in Windows for Workgroups is not the same as the Windows one).
Good luck!
FitWell
>applications. It has been FIVE years since the release of Windows 95, and
>that must have been long enough to find replacement apps for the ones you
>are using now.
No, it is unnecessary to switch, esp. if you don't want to or care to
or for whatever reason.
>There are no patches for DOS or Windows whatsoever. Microsoft officially
Y2K patch (new file manager) found at:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/windows3x/winfile/
>stopped support on Windows 3.1 By the beginning of 1998, and that was the
>sign for most IT persons, to get rid of everything that even LOOKS like
>DOS/Windows 3.1, especially with the Y2K bug coming.
Maarten, my Win 3.1 and that of my cousin are working fabulousely
(haven't asked my uncle yet, since there's been no time. Doubt
there's any problem there, either, since his checked out fine on Y2K
tests, as well, same as ours). There is no need to upgrade. It is
understandable that you have an opinion, but there are plenty of
resources available for our 16-bit computers. Just thought you should
know.
Cheers!!
Joseph V. Morris
I must take exception to your statements.
"Maarten W.G. Andriessen" <maarten.a...@NOSPAM.kabelfoon.nl> wrote
in message news:84r7fa$4c3$1...@news.kabelfoon.nl...
| "Walt Letkiewicz" <wa...@efn.org> wrote in message
| news:Pine.GSU.4.05.100010...@garcia.efn.org...
. . . .
| > I maintain a dedicated, stand-alone system (appart from my main
| > system) on which I run various DOS and WIN 3.x apps that, for
| > whatever reason, do not run happily on WIN 95/98 systems.
. . . .
| The best suggestion would be to switch over to Windows 32 Bit based
| applications. It has been FIVE years since the release of Windows 95,
and
| that must have been long enough to find replacement apps for the ones
you
| are using now.
Walt has clearly stated why he wants to maintain a Win3x system; he also
makes it fairly obvious that he has access to (or at least familiarity
with) Win9x systems and that the apps he runs on the Win3x system
(whatever they may be) do not work well on Win9x.
|
| There are no patches for DOS or Windows whatsoever. Microsoft officially
| stopped support on Windows 3.1 By the beginning of 1998, and that was
the
| sign for most IT persons, to get rid of everything that even LOOKS like
| DOS/Windows 3.1, especially with the Y2K bug coming.
|
The above statement, as Fitwell's reply so clearly demonstrates in the
context of Walt's problem, is simply incorrect. A quick trip to the MS
Download Center at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.asp?
shows
310 Downloads available _today_ for Win3.1 products,
46 Downloads available _today_ for Windows for Workgroups 3.11 products,
and
67 Downloads available _today_ for MS-DOS products.
I am unsure as to the basis for your statement the MS has 'officially
stopped support on Windows 3.1', but the preceding suggests otherwise.
Indeed, if I go to the Knowledge Base, I can find references to
approximately 100 Qs dealing with MSIE for Win3x alone. If the Knowledge
Base isn't support, I don't know what is.
Furthermore, in a Dec 1999 survey of IT managers in large corporate
organizations, fully 30% of IT managers indicate they still support some
DOS/Win16 PCs.
The Y2K fixes have been available from MS for Windows File Managers for
Win3x since 1997, IIRC.
I am personally aware of at least one major international corporation in
which DOS/Win16 workstations were the designated platform as of Jan 1998;
transition (to Win/NT) wasn't even scheduled to _begin_ until Aug 1998.
They had 8000 workstations.
God knows MS would like to cut out DOS/Win16 support and they're doing a
lot to make pages on their website that would be of interest to DOS/Win16
users inaccessible, but there are certain 'impediments': Adverse
reactions from users who still need or prefer DOS/Win16, Linux, and the
threat of more DOJ litigation.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris
jvmo...@erols.com
ICQ #29438199
This is a NEWSGROUP message; except for privacy reasons, please respond
therein; an e-mail COPY is always appreciated, of course.
Matthew Haley
>The best suggestion would be to switch over to Windows 32 Bit based
>applications. It has been FIVE years since the release of Windows
>95, and that must have been long enough to find replacement apps for
>the ones you are using now.
Windows 3.1 itself has _far_ less Y2K problems than Windows 95.
>There are no patches for DOS or Windows whatsoever. Microsoft
There is an updated WINFILE.EXE to fix problems displaying dates.
>officially stopped support on Windows 3.1 By the beginning of 1998,
>and that was the sign for most IT persons, to get rid of everything
>that even LOOKS like DOS/Windows 3.1, especially with the Y2K bug
>coming.
The other two problems with Win3.1:
1) The DATE command requires four digits to specify years greater
than 1999
2) MS Backup is supposedly broken, but no one should be
using it anyways.
--
-- Matthew Haley
-- Email address in headers is invalid
-- Use: m r h 9 9 @ u s w e s t . n e t
--
-- Matthew Haley
-- Email address in headers is invalid
-- Use: m r h 9 9 @ u s w e s t . n e t
Ira Sterbakov
system, and has other interesting useful things for your system. I enclose
the file, even though long, since others may have need of it. I would
suggest ordering the free CD by calling 1-888-MSFT-y2k
Dear Customer,
If you are running this CD on a 16-bit operating system from Microsoft
(Windows 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups 3.11) you will be able to take
advantage of the following:
- Access to a static version of the Microsoft Year 2000 Website content
available at the time this CD was produced.
- Year 2000 Updates for selected 16-bit Microsoft Products and tools
- A minimum version of the 16 bit IE Internet browser. This browser is
made available to you in case you don't already have a browser on your
system. A browser is necessary to view the CD version of the Microsoft Year
2000 Web Site.
Install minimum version of Internet browser
--------------------------------------------
To install the minimum version of IE please point File Manager to the
Ie_16bit directory on the CD and execute setup.exe.
CD version of the website
-------------------------
To view the CD version of the Microsoft Year 2000 web content please point
your browser to \WebContent\default.htm on the CD. We have made every effort
to include a full version of the content available on the web at the time
this CD was produced. However, be aware that because of technical
differences betwee
n Web based and CD based content, some of the look and feel and
functionality of the static content will be slightly different.
Available Year 2000 updates for 16-bit products
===============================================
The following updates are available on this CD:
Microsoft Outlook Express 5.0 Year 2000 Update
----------------------------------------------
To apply this update please go to the \OE5 directory on the Year 2000
Resource CD and run the q237823.exe file.
Windows 3.1 and WFW 3.11
------------------------
All of these operating systems have a compliancy rating of Compliant#. The
patches included in this CD do not change the product compliance
classification. They do, however, address some known issues of the product
as it relates to the Year 2000. See below for details under the "MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT Windows
3.1 and WFW 3.11" section in this article.
Definition of Compliant#
The product meets Microsoft's standard of compliance as indicated with the
following symbol applied:
# The product is compliant with acceptable deviations from Microsoft's
standard of compliance. An acceptable deviation does not affect the core
functionality, data integrity, stability, or reliability of the product.
Windows For Workgroups 3.11 update:
To apply this update for Windows for Workgroups 3.11 please apply the
wfwfilup.exe file:
1. In File Manager, Please go to the \Win30 directory on your Y2K Resource
CD.
2. In File Manager, double-click the Wfwfilup.exe file to expand the
Winfile.exe file it contains.
3. Quit Windows.
4. Rename the Winfile.exe file in the Windows directory to Winfile.old.
5. Copy the new Winfile.exe file to the Windows directory.
6. Restart your computer.
Windows 3.1 update:
1. In File Manager, please go to the \Win30 directory on your Y2K Resource
CD
2. In File Manager, double-click the W31filup.exe file to expand the
Winfile.exe file it contains.
3. Quit Windows.
4. Rename the Winfile.exe file in the Windows directory to Winfile.old.
5. Copy the new Winfile.exe file to the Windows directory.
6. Restart your computer.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT Windows 3.1 and WFW 3.11
-----------------------------------------------
For more information about these products please point your Internet browser
to the following product guides.
Windows 3.1: \WebCon~1\usa\year2k\product\u67784en.htm
Windows for Workgroups 3.11: \WebCon~1\usa\year2k\product\u14885en.htm
Access 2.0 Year 2000 update:
----------------------------
To apply this update please go to the \ACCESS directory on the CD and run
the Acc2Date.exe file.
Word 5.5 Year 2000 update:
--------------------------
To apply this update please go to the \word55 directory on the CD and run
the word55.exe file.
Works 3.0 File Updater:
-----------------------
To access this tool please go to the \works30 directory on the CD and run
the WKS3UPDT.exe file.
Thank you very much for choosing Microsoft,
The Microsoft Y2K team
"Maarten W.G. Andriessen" <maarten.a...@NOSPAM.kabelfoon.nl> wrote in
message news:84r7fa$4c3$1...@news.kabelfoon.nl...
>
> "Walt Letkiewicz" <wa...@efn.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSU.4.05.100010...@garcia.efn.org...
> >
> > Hello friends,
> >
> > I maintain a dedicated, stand-alone system (appart from my main
> > system) on which I run various DOS and WIN 3.x apps that, for
> > whatever reason, do not run happily on WIN 95/98 systems.
> >
FitWell
anyone see merit in requesting the CD? (I bought my computer
secondhand so don't have any original licenses for it. The Win 3.1
and some of the other s/w I got was being thrown out in the govt job I
worked at in the summer (I found it in the recycle bin!!), so it has a
license but to the Canadian Federal Government. What to do?
I feel very strongly, even if just on principle, would be good to
request it, to show there is a need for continued support of
16-bitters. (I can also advise my cousin and uncle to get one for
their computers.)
Any comments?
******************
Joseph V. Morris
I would get it. Ultimately, CDs are more durable and faster if you have
to restore (or your hard drive crashes).
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris
jvmo...@erols.com
ICQ #29438199
This is a NEWSGROUP message; except for privacy reasons, please respond
therein; an e-mail COPY is always appreciated, of course.
"FitWell" <NOs...@NOjunkMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:38723277...@news.magma.ca...
| This is an interesting CD, although I have the patch already, does
| anyone see merit in requesting the CD? (I bought my computer
| secondhand so don't have any original licenses for it. The Win 3.1
| and some of the other s/w I got was being thrown out in the govt job I
| worked at in the summer (I found it in the recycle bin!!), so it has a
| license but to the Canadian Federal Government. What to do?
|
. . . .
FitWell
below. The young woman who answered, poor soul, didn't know what I
was talking about. The only CD product she had re Y2K-compliancy
mentioned nothing about Win 3x, only Win 9x+. She had no supervisor I
could speak with (they're from an independent company hired by M$) and
the only other number, which by now I have learned may or may not work
in Canada, was not toll free.
What to do? Is the Win 9x CD the same one for Win 3x?
Help.
NoS...@this.is.invalid
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 23:20:49 +0100, in
<comp.os.ms-windows.apps.utilities.win3x>, "Maarten W.G. Andriessen"
<maarten.a...@NOSPAM.kabelfoon.nl> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> The best suggestion would be to switch over to Windows 32 Bit based
> applications.
[snip]
Actually, that's a pretty lame solution, given the context.
> It has been FIVE years since the release of Windows 95,
[snip]
Actually, it's just over four.
> and
> that must have been long enough to find replacement apps for the ones you
> are using now.
>
[snip]
Did you even read the article you followed-up to? He clearly stated that he
already has a W9x box, but that the apps he prefers to continue using run
best under Win3.1x. (Big surprise. <~>)
> There are no patches for DOS or Windows whatsoever.
[snip]
You _must_ be joking.
> Microsoft officially
> stopped support on Windows 3.1 By the beginning of 1998,
[snip]
Then why are there literally HUNDREDS of files specifically for the
_support_ of Windows 3.x available on MS's WWW & FTP sites?
> ...and that was the
> sign for most IT persons, to get rid of everything that even LOOKS like
> DOS/Windows 3.1, especially with the Y2K bug coming.
>
[snip]
Only if they are as incredibly naive and ill-informed as you apparently are.
-- Jay T. Blocksom
----------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
approtek[at]rcn.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Use address in signature.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NoS...@this.is.invalid
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 12:48:55 -0800, in
<comp.os.ms-windows.apps.utilities.win3x>, Walt Letkiewicz <wa...@efn.org>
wrote:
>
> Hello friends,
>
> I maintain a dedicated, stand-alone system (appart from my main
> system) on which I run various DOS and WIN 3.x apps that, for
> whatever reason, do not run happily on WIN 95/98 systems.
>
> On New Year's Day, my hardware and DOS 6.22 environment dates rolled
> over to the year 2000. But my WINDOWS 3.11 environment date rolled
> over to 1900.
>
[snip]
I don't know what was actually responsible for that -- it could be any of
several things -- but I can assure you that it was NOT Windows 3.11 (see
below). Odds are, you just needed to re-boot your system and confirm that
the correct date is being retained by your HW clock.
> It would be nice to have the correct date show up on saved files.
> Can anyone point me to a patch or a hack to fix this WIN 3.11
> Y2K glitch? Do any such things exist?
>
[snip]
The *ONLY* update needed by any flavor of Win3.1x is a replacement File
Manager (WINFILE.EXE), to correct a minor cosmetic glitch with the _display_
of file dates of 1/1/2000 or later. You also need to go into [Control Panel
| International | Date Format] and select the four-digit display setting.
> PS: Re the thread on using a scrolling mouse with WIN 3.11,
> plannet-crafters.com has a very reasonably priced program called
> "flywheel" which purports to allow the use of scrolling mice in
> 3.x operating systems. Someone may have already suggested this,
> but I thought I'd throw my $0.02 in while I was here. :-)
Which implies that you may also be running Plug-In, which _is_ mildly
"broken" with regard to Y2K. But again, this is just a display issue, and
it still would not explain why your system apparently "thought" it was 1900.
NoS...@this.is.invalid
<comp.os.ms-windows.apps.utilities.win3x>, NOs...@NOjunkMAIL.com (FitWell)
wrote:
>
> Well, talk about getting really p*ssed off!! I called the number
Was it _really_ necessary to AGAIN re-quote the ENTIRE thread-to-date (160+
lines strong), to ask one simple question?!?
Please exercise some restraint.
> What to do? Is the Win 9x CD the same one for Win 3x?
>
[snip]
Judging from the wording of the introductory text, my guess is that it is
one and the same. But in any event, since it is a freebie, why not just ask
for it and find out for yourself?
Ira Sterbakov
the file that I posted. They have the files mentioned. You may order it
yourself, in case you buy another machine.
Ira
"FitWell" <NOs...@NOjunkMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:3872457c...@news.magma.ca...
flipglen
>
>Which implies that you may also be running Plug-In, which _is_ mildly
>"broken" with regard to Y2K. But again, this is just a display issue, and
>it still would not explain why your system apparently "thought" it was 1900.
>
> ----------------------------
> Appropriate Technology, Inc.
> approtek[at]rcn.com
>
bar clock. No answer to my direct queries to Plannet Crafters (as I'm
a registered user).
Jay, If you can elaborate on what you know about Plug-In and Y2K I'm
interested.
Phil
NoS...@this.is.invalid
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 01:13:18 GMT, flip...@stn.net (flipglen) wrote:
>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps.utilities.win3x,
> comp.os.ms-windows.misc
>
[snip]
> Hum, I'm running Plug-In and having Y2K date problems on the title
> bar clock. No answer to my direct queries to Plannet Crafters (as I'm
> a registered user).
>
> Jay, If you can elaborate on what you know about Plug-In and Y2K I'm
> interested.
>
> Phil
You already nailed it. The title-bar date display is incorrect. If you
have it set to display the century (i.e., four-digit year), it shows "1900"
(despite the system date correctly being 2000). If you set it to _not_
display the century, then it shows just "0" instead of "00".
Please keep us posted on what, if anything, you do eventually hear from
Plannet Crafters. (I won't be hearing from them directly, since I refuse to
"register" it due to their arrogant and completely unfounded claim that I
"must" do so.)
-- Jay T. Blocksom
----------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
approtek[at]rcn.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Terry L Morris
You indicate that Planet Crafters is still in business. Were you able to contact
them directly? I wrote to them and telephoned there business number three
years ago and received no response. I presumed that they were no longer in
business. Please respond via email or in this NG if you have had contact with
them. Thanks,
Terry L. Morris / te...@config.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willondon Donovan wrote:
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Which implies that you may also be running Plug-In, which _is_ mildly
> >> "broken" with regard to Y2K. But again, this is just a display issue, and
> >> it still would not explain why your system apparently "thought" it was 1900.
>
> flipglen wrote:
> > Hum, I'm running Plug-In and having Y2K date problems on the title
> > bar clock. No answer to my direct queries to Plannet Crafters (as I'm
> > a registered user).
> >
> > Jay, If you can elaborate on what you know about Plug-In and Y2K I'm
> > interested.
>
> If I click the title bar to get the date, I see "1-06-0 6:54". The only
> other glitch I came across is with a Mon-Fri alarm I had set. Tuesday,
> Jan 4, I noticed it wasn't activating. I checked and saw that it was set
> correctly, except that the next trigger was for Feb 3, 2000 or something.
> I rolled that date back and it's OK now.
>
> Nice to see they're still in business.
> It must be eight years since I bought Plug-In.
>
> --
> Willondon Donovan / will...@bigfoot.com
flipglen
wrote:
>Willondon,
>
>You indicate that Planet Crafters is still in business. Were you able to contact
>them directly? I wrote to them and telephoned there business number three
>years ago and received no response. I presumed that they were no longer in
>business. Please respond via email or in this NG if you have had contact with
>them. Thanks,
>
>Terry L. Morris / te...@config.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------
They have a web site, so I assume they're paying the bill. I suspect
the company may have been purchased.
Phil
flipglen
<will...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>J
>
>If I click the title bar to get the date, I see "1-06-0 6:54". The only
>other glitch I came across is with a Mon-Fri alarm I had set. Tuesday,
>Jan 4, I noticed it wasn't activating. I checked and saw that it was set
>correctly, except that the next trigger was for Feb 3, 2000 or something.
>I rolled that date back and it's OK now.
>
>Nice to see they're still in business.
>It must be eight years since I bought Plug-In.
>
>--
>Willondon Donovan / will...@bigfoot.com
I can get the same thing in the title bat, but if you expand it to
more digits you may find, as I did, that the 0 is short for 1900, not
2000.
Phil
Geoff Dyer
<will...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>If I click the title bar to get the date, I see "1-06-0 6:54".
I seem to remember it had minor problems with free disk space, with a
similar appearance. If the MB of free space was in a range where
Plug-In was meant to show two digits after the decimal point, a zero
immediately after the decimal point would not be displayed. Eg 9.06 MB
free would be shown as 9.6MB.
--
Geoff
(to e-mail me, remove any instances of "-nospam" from my address)
Zymotrope
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, FitWell wrote:
> >> On New Year's Day, my hardware and DOS 6.22 environment dates rolled
> >> over to the year 2000. But my WINDOWS 3.11 environment date rolled
> >> over to 1900.
>
> Mine rolled over to January 04, 1980. I merely reset to January 01,
> 2000 in DOS via 'date' command. No problems there. DOS and Win 3.1
> show correct date and have kept showing it correctly since the 1st.
> Did you try this by any chance? Or is it that the date won't go to
> 2000 (??).
>
> >> It would be nice to have the correct date show up on saved files.
> >> Can anyone point me to a patch or a hack to fix this WIN 3.11
> >> Y2K glitch? Do any such things exist?
>
> The Y2K patch for Win 3x can be found at:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/windows3x/winfile/
>
> (choose the right one for your system as the replacement for the file
> manager in Windows for Workgroups is not the same as the Windows one).
>
> Good luck!
Thanks much. I haven't tried manually changing the Windows date yet.
I didn't figure it was necessary since the hardware and DOS rolled
over to 2000 ok, but I'll give it a shot.
I've loaded the winfile patch, and it seems to have taken care of
the other minor problems.
--Walt
Zymotrope
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Maarten W.G. Andriessen wrote:
>
> "Walt Letkiewicz" <wa...@efn.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSU.4.05.100010...@garcia.efn.org...
> >
> > Hello friends,
> >
> > I maintain a dedicated, stand-alone system (appart from my main
> > system) on which I run various DOS and WIN 3.x apps that, for
> > whatever reason, do not run happily on WIN 95/98 systems.
> >
> > On New Year's Day, my hardware and DOS 6.22 environment dates rolled
> > over to the year 2000. But my WINDOWS 3.11 environment date rolled
> > over to 1900.
> >
> > OK, I can't say this was unexpected, and I don't have any
> > date-critical apps on this system. But...
> >
> > It would be nice to have the correct date show up on saved files.
> > Can anyone point me to a patch or a hack to fix this WIN 3.11
> > Y2K glitch? Do any such things exist?
> >
> > All suggestions gratefully received, either by post or e-mail.
>
> The best suggestion would be to switch over to Windows 32 Bit based
> applications. It has been FIVE years since the release of Windows 95, and
> that must have been long enough to find replacement apps for the ones you
> are using now.
Were that true, I would have done so. I am maintaining this extra
system specifically for running software which I like, for which I
have NOT found satisfactory replacements.
> There are no patches for DOS or Windows whatsoever.
Thanks for responding, but obviously this in not the case. Another
poster pointed me to a winfile patch, which seems to have solved
98% of the problems.
--Walt
Zymotrope
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 NoS...@This.is.invalid wrote:
> The *ONLY* update needed by any flavor of Win3.1x is a replacement File
> Manager (WINFILE.EXE), to correct a minor cosmetic glitch with the _display_
> of file dates of 1/1/2000 or later. You also need to go into [Control Panel
> | International | Date Format] and select the four-digit display setting.
Thanks.
> > PS: Re the thread on using a scrolling mouse with WIN 3.11,
> > plannet-crafters.com has a very reasonably priced program called
> > "flywheel" which purports to allow the use of scrolling mice in
> > 3.x operating systems. Someone may have already suggested this,
> > but I thought I'd throw my $0.02 in while I was here. :-)
>
> Which implies that you may also be running Plug-In, which _is_ mildly
> "broken" with regard to Y2K. But again, this is just a display issue, and
> it still would not explain why your system apparently "thought" it was 1900.
True. It may be that the problem was with Plug-In.
--Walt
Zymotrope
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 NoS...@This.is.invalid wrote:
> [Posted & Mailed]
>
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 01:13:18 GMT, flip...@stn.net (flipglen) wrote:
>
> > Hum, I'm running Plug-In and having Y2K date problems on the title
> > bar clock. No answer to my direct queries to Plannet Crafters (as I'm
> > a registered user).
> >
> > Jay, If you can elaborate on what you know about Plug-In and Y2K I'm
> > interested.
> >
>
> You already nailed it. The title-bar date display is incorrect. If you
> have it set to display the century (i.e., four-digit year), it shows "1900"
> (despite the system date correctly being 2000). If you set it to _not_
> display the century, then it shows just "0" instead of "00".
>
> Please keep us posted on what, if anything, you do eventually hear from
> Plannet Crafters. (I won't be hearing from them directly, since I refuse to
> "register" it due to their arrogant and completely unfounded claim that I
> "must" do so.)
I'm also a registered Plug-In user, and I've e-mailed them as well.
I had mail from them as recently as this past summer, so *someone* was
minding the store back then, at least. If I hear back from them I'll post
their response.
--Walt
NoS...@this.is.invalid
<comp.os.ms-windows.apps.utilities.win3x>, Zymotrope <wa...@efn.org> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I'm also a registered Plug-In user, and I've e-mailed them as well.
> I had mail from them as recently as this past summer, so *someone* was
> minding the store back then, at least. If I hear back from them I'll
> post their response.
>
> --Walt
>
Thanks!
flipglen
<will...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
No answer to my direct queries to Plannet Crafters (as I'm
>> a registered user).
>>
Just to confirm that Plannet Crafters ignored my request for
assistance.
Phil