I witnessed it......
54ECHO
my office, I can attest to the fact that there are problems out there, and
they will surface. The consequences are yet to be decided.
I was give the instructions to 'roll-over' some of our older computers to
Jan. 1, staggering the roll-overs on different dates, so as to nullify any
difficulties. Friday, I rolled over one system, approx. 8 years old, a 166
Pentium - no problems. Today it is still perking along, thinking that the
date is Jan. 4, 2000.
Today, I rolled over an identical system - same make, speed, with identical
software, peripherals, etc. It rolled over fine, thinking it was Jan. 1.
But, after I shut it down and cold re-booted, it rolled itself back to Jan.
4, 1980. Go figure.
Neither of these systems rely on date-dependent programs (spreadsheets,
etc.) - just cad programs. I hate to think what would have transpired if
the second system was date dependent, especially with some of the more
sensitive software (energy/chemical production, waste water, etc.).
I'll continue to stagger roll-over/test our other systems and will post my
findings.
--
Dig the well before you need the water..........
Tom Morrow
Canopy Co Tulsa OK
Did you get red of that annoying "Happy 99" virus that you obviously have and
are
transmitting all over the place?
Hope you did not get it on the company PC ;-)
In article <01bf45dc$cb32f7e0$d765f5d0@default>, "54ECHO" <d...@seark.net>
writes:
>Subject: I witnessed it......
>From: "54ECHO" <d...@seark.net>
>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:42:29 GMT
Matt Shaver
54ECHO <d...@seark.net> wrote in article
<01bf45dc$cb32f7e0$d765f5d0@default>...
> Friday, I rolled over one system, approx. 8 years old, a 166
> Pentium - no problems.
An EIGHT (8) year old P166? That must be the very first one...
Wise Guy
manufacturers were not selling Pentium machines.
If it's truly a P166, then it's probably more like 4 to 5 years old.
-- Wise Guy
Matt Shaver wrote in message <01bf466c$d8b64760$0200...@erols.com>...
Marty Allred
> > Pentium - no problems.
>
> An EIGHT (8) year old P166? That must be the very first one...
>
You gotta cut the guy a *little* slack, he did say "approx. 8 years
old", didn't he?
The Pentium wasn't released until 1993. I'm not sure how early in the
year, so the machine could be real close to 7 years old, which could be
considered to be approximately 8 years old. You just have to stretch a
little bit.
--
--Marty Allred
"The Rambling Man"
Don't believe me? Try reading one of my messages.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Old Biker
selling them. Moot anyway, age doesn't affect the problem the man observed.
Once again you're seizing on a meaningless mistake to dodge the meat of the
post and denegrate a person trying to offer usefull info..
Wise Guy <Wis...@home.com> wrote in article
<8367qi$3e...@eccws12.dearborn.ford.com>...
> once again - someone talking through their ass. In 1991, computer
> manufacturers were not selling Pentium machines.
> If it's truly a P166, then it's probably more like 4 to 5 years old.
>
> -- Wise Guy
>
> Matt Shaver wrote in message <01bf466c$d8b64760$0200...@erols.com>...
> >
> >
> >54ECHO <d...@seark.net> wrote in article
> ><01bf45dc$cb32f7e0$d765f5d0@default>...
Strider
virus attached?
Strider
54ECHO wrote in message <01bf45dc$cb32f7e0$d765f5d0@default>...
A.T. Hagan
Man, that Happy99.exe virus do get around don't it? Seems like I see
it float through the newsgroup in one thread or another at least once
a week.
.............Alan.
--
From the House at Cat's Green -- Alan T. Hagan, NRA Life Member
The Universe is utterly indifferent to the fact that
you do not realize the consequences of your actions,
you will have to deal with them just the same.
Author of
The Prudent Pantry: Your Guide to Building a Food Insurance Program
From Borderline Press, Inc. http://www.providenceco-op.com
Prudent Food Storage FAQ editor. Some of the FAQ host sites:
http://www.providenceco-op.com (ver 3.5) (FAQ home)
http://www.waltonfeed.com/grain/faqs/ (ver 3.5)
http://www.hischaracter.com/foods.htm (ver 3.5)
http://www.survivalnet.org (ver 3.0)(EUROPE)
http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetIULU/faq.html (ver 3.0) (EUROPE)
http://buddyebsen.com/standeyo/News_Files/Hollys.html (ver3.5)(AUSTRALIA)
http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Hollys.html (ver 3.5) (AUSTRALIA)
The most current FAQ version is now 3.5
Wise Guy
followed by the Pentium90.
The Pentium 166 was not out in 1993.
--Wise Guy
Marty Allred wrote in message <836jvj$stn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <01bf466c$d8b64760$0200...@erols.com>,
> "Matt Shaver" <msh...@erols.com> wrote:
>> 54ECHO <d...@seark.net> wrote in article
>> > Friday, I rolled over one system, approx. 8 years old, a 166
>> > Pentium - no problems.
>>
>> An EIGHT (8) year old P166? That must be the very first one...
>>
>
Miradus
>Are you aware, Mr. Computer Guru, that you posted a message with the happy99
>virus attached?
>
Mr. Computer Guru is why most private companies are going to
completely fail the Y2K challenge. The management has absolutely no
clue about computers, and has hired someone who has just slightly more
of a clue... but not enough to do any good.
You get what you pay for.
Miradus
Miradus
>As a person in charge of upgrading/repairing/ordering/setting up PC's for
>my office, I can attest to the fact that there are problems out there, and
>they will surface. The consequences are yet to be decided.
>
>I was give the instructions to 'roll-over' some of our older computers to
>Jan. 1, staggering the roll-overs on different dates, so as to nullify any
>difficulties. Friday, I rolled over one system, approx. 8 years old, a 166
>Pentium - no problems. Today it is still perking along, thinking that the
>date is Jan. 4, 2000.
>
>Today, I rolled over an identical system - same make, speed, with identical
>software, peripherals, etc. It rolled over fine, thinking it was Jan. 1.
>But, after I shut it down and cold re-booted, it rolled itself back to Jan.
>4, 1980. Go figure.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Here's a situation I've recently
encountered..
Large networks communicate through an IP address for each machine.
Often the addresses come from a central computer which dishes them out
according to a timed 'lease' which may last anywhere from a couple of
hours to 3 weeks.
Some of mine which have long leases that extend past New Year's Day
have mysteriously stopped working. Not all of them, or I'd be able to
say for sure it was a Y2K problem. Just about half of them, and none
of them with a shorter lease are having problems.
I expect to see a lot more of that. Y2K has actually already begun.
Miradus
Laurie-Ann Curry
that the y2k guys that had been woking on the computers at her office
told the admin team that they had done all they could do for the
company. The compaqs that the company has would either have to have new
mother boards, which carried a 1100 ans some odd dollar price tag per
computer, or backup all the important data and plan on a crash at
rollover. Every computer failed the rollover test. They explained by
simply saying that compaq has a huge problem with something in their
bios and there was jack they could do about it. To your knowledge is
this on the level? and what exactly if it is on the level is the
problem? The company did buy two new computers I believe boo told me
but since she is low carving on the totem pole in admin she still has a
compaq. It locked all admin personnel out today and the techs haven't
figured out what the problem is. She wondered if it might be from all
the jacking around with it that the techs did in the y2k runs. Who
knows? But I thought I would ask one of our resident wizards.
LA
JT
and were asked to test a local training organisation
we were told not to bother with latest Compaq's ( this was in July 99)
we "accidentally " tested one which was less than a year old and it failed
the rollover as did all the Compaq's in the organisation ( Servers included)
a little of running around like headless chickens
result all pcs will be turned off over millennium
I believe that major parts of military in Uk will turn off 10 mins before
and back on 10 mins after millemium
what's going to happen in 9999
Laurie-Ann Curry <sut...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:385881C8...@bluemarble.net...
Bill Velek
>
> We are a PC Dealer in UK ( not Compaq!)
> and were asked to test a local training organisation
> we were told not to bother with latest Compaq's ( this was in July 99)
>
> we "accidentally " tested one which was less than a year old and it failed
> the rollover as did all the Compaq's in the organisation ( Servers included)
> a little of running around like headless chickens
> result all pcs will be turned off over millennium
For the entire year of 2000?
> I believe that major parts of military in Uk will turn off 10 mins before
> and back on 10 mins after millemium
Frankly, I don't see where that will help much; it will still be the
year 00 -- even 10 minutes after midnight.
Bill Velek
Bill Velek
snipped post and comments about Compaq computers and BIOS fixes
> Sounds like the people doing the work at the place
> you were talking about don't know what they are doing, or are trying
> to sell a bunch of new hardware.
snip
Nevertheless, that company apparently isn't compliant. I wondered how
many other "fixable" computers are not yet fixed due to negligence or
dishonesty by the fixers. Whatever the reasons, computer failures are
computer failures, as I see it.
Bill Velek
Miradus
<sut...@bluemarble.net> wrote:
>Miradus I have a question for you. Boo came home the other day and said
>that the y2k guys that had been woking on the computers at her office
>told the admin team that they had done all they could do for the
>company. The compaqs that the company has would either have to have new
>mother boards, which carried a 1100 ans some odd dollar price tag per
>computer, or backup all the important data and plan on a crash at
>rollover. Every computer failed the rollover test. They explained by
>simply saying that compaq has a huge problem with something in their
>bios and there was jack they could do about it. To your knowledge is
>this on the level? and what exactly if it is on the level is the
>problem? The company did buy two new computers I believe boo told me
>but since she is low carving on the totem pole in admin she still has a
>compaq. It locked all admin personnel out today and the techs haven't
>figured out what the problem is. She wondered if it might be from all
>the jacking around with it that the techs did in the y2k runs. Who
>knows? But I thought I would ask one of our resident wizards.
You might try asking one of the desktop wizards. I do large database
operations on servers running around 100k each... my memory of my
desktop days are a little fuzzy.
I'm going to make some assumptions and try to explain a possible
answer. Some of the older Compaqs are not easily upgraded, since they
have a lot of proprietary components. You're locked into more Compaq
at that point. The BIOS is the basic area where the computer receives
its instructions about hardware handling, etc. It's the most common
problem child for Y2K in older desktops. If the particular model of
older Compaq you have doesn't have a flash bios upgrade, you're pretty
much screwed without changing those out.
Failing the Y2K test could mean anything from not saving Microsoft
Word files with the correct timestamp, to failing to boot.
Good luck.
Miradus
Laurie-Ann Curry
thanks for your answers guys, I forwarded the posts to boo's office so
we will see what we will see.
LA
Abe D. Lockman
> As a person in charge of upgrading/repairing/ordering/setting up PC's for
> my office, I can attest to the fact that there are problems out there, and
> they will surface. The consequences are yet to be decided.
>
> I was give the instructions to 'roll-over' some of our older computers to
> Jan. 1, staggering the roll-overs on different dates, so as to nullify any
> difficulties. Friday, I rolled over one system, approx. 8 years old, a 166
> Pentium - no problems. Today it is still perking along, thinking that the
> date is Jan. 4, 2000.
>
> Today, I rolled over an identical system - same make, speed, with identical
> software, peripherals, etc. It rolled over fine, thinking it was Jan. 1.
> But, after I shut it down and cold re-booted, it rolled itself back to Jan.
> 4, 1980. Go figure.
>
> Neither of these systems rely on date-dependent programs (spreadsheets,
> etc.) - just cad programs. I hate to think what would have transpired if
> the second system was date dependent, especially with some of the more
> sensitive software (energy/chemical production, waste water, etc.).
>
> I'll continue to stagger roll-over/test our other systems and will post my
> findings.
A national memo crisis!!! Sounds like a job for stupor-Gore.
adl
meme_e...@my-deja.com
> This is just the tip of the iceberg. Here's a situation I've recently
> encountered..
>
> Large networks communicate through an IP address for each machine.
> Often the addresses come from a central computer which dishes them out
> according to a timed 'lease' which may last anywhere from a couple of
> hours to 3 weeks.
>
> Some of mine which have long leases that extend past New Year's Day
> have mysteriously stopped working. Not all of them, or I'd be able to
> say for sure it was a Y2K problem. Just about half of them, and none
> of them with a shorter lease are having problems.
>
> I expect to see a lot more of that. Y2K has actually already begun.
A thought has occurred to me. The real problem is not the date, but
how computers react to the date. It wonder in how many cases it might
be possible to temporarily and partially solve a massive mess, by
settling upon a common denominator in a network (say 1980) and starting
everything from that date, then using gap software to translate back
and forth from that and the actual date.
It seems as if there were a choice between (for instance) no
functionality at all, and some functionality with extra work (the same
as with no functionality anyway), then this might be an appealing
alternative in some cases. Is this unrealistic? After all, one can set
up specialized networks or workstations with the sole function of
buffering between "fooled" stations and networks and their results
(payroll, etc.). It'd be expensive, sure, in time and energy, but would
it be nearly as expensive as struggling for weeks to "properly" fix a
self-worsifying problem with which to begin?