ACTUAL Y2K CONCERN ????
Ef
their rollover test is done to make sure it's compatible. There are a few
apps which don't roll to 2K. Note I said a few. Many people are checking the
RTC(most computer made in the last 3-4 years are setup for the rollover, I
had a 486Local bus which was compatible) and OS(Win95/98/NT), but not their
apps. That was my mil of a cent.
--
Ef
Blue ones always...
"George Rabe" <Cincy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:38699CF0...@worldnet.att.net...
> I was told by someone that, your computer will crash on the century
> rollover if you have you're "Short date style" set with 2 y's instead of
> 4 y's. This was supposed to have been announced by the national TV
> networks. Any validity to this?
>
>
> George Rabe
>
George Rabe
rollover if you have you're "Short date style" set with 2 y's instead of
4 y's. This was supposed to have been announced by the national TV
networks. Any validity to this?
If so, this is how you set it in a PC with windows 95/98.
Click:
START
CONTROL PANEL
REGIONAL SETTINGS
DATE
"Short date style" window should have yyyy (4 y's) in it, not yy (2y's)
as the"Long date style" window does.
George Rabe
sky gimp
and m.s. cretified that that is only relitive to how it is displayed & not
how the system functions
Brian Bo
local morning radio talk shows and spread this rumor. I think every
computer guy must have called in and corrected this guy. This particular
morning show took 4 phone calls after this guy proclaimed how Windows was
going to crash because it only uses two digits in the date field.....all 4
of these guys explain how wrong this guy was.
What people don't realize is that setting in the "Regional Settings" is only
a personal preference as to how your date is going to be displayed in the
display field in areas such as Windows Explorer.
Please, before you spread any Y2K rumors, check with the source first.
www.windows.com is a good place to start. I will make it even easier:
If you are worried about your Windows 95 machine and Y2K, then go here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/bin/w95/y2kw95.txt
That is the readme file that will explain any and all Y2K issues with Win
95. Bottom line, most of you really don't need to worry. If you want to
install any OFFICIAL MS Y2K updates, then go here (easy to do, and you will
sleep/pass out better that night knowing you system is ok):
http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/downloads/contents/wurecommended/s_wufeat
ured/win95y2k/default.asp?site=95
If you have Windows 98, you have even less to worry about. But if you
really want to make sure you are OK...then Hit the "Windows Update" button
on the Start Bar, and download all of the "CRITICAL UPDATES" under the
Product Updates web page it sends you to. There are IE security issues it
will fix, as well as some possible Y2K annoyance issues.
Also, here is an article directly related to Y2K rumors, it is a good read
for those of you that are still worried:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/usingwindows/maintaining/articles/910Oct/
RumorY2K.asp
The only thing that I am scared of on Y2K is other people, not my computer
crashing. In fact, one of the bigger international clients that uses my
company is so certain that nothing is going to be going wrong at Midnight,
they are going to launch the new Payroll system at 12:01 am on Jan 1.
IMO, the people spreading Y2K rumors are basically as credible as the guy on
the street corner wearing a poster board sign saying "the end of the world
is near, repent!"
I worked with 42 "Y2K Panicked" people today. They had all heard some new
rumor or such. After personally checking out their system, and running Y2K
test on it (even as simple as setting the date ahead a couple of days and
testing that the Real Time Clock can handle the turnover), I did not
discover one Y2K issue.
Also, if there really is going to be a problem, we will actually start
seeing the problem before Midnight on the 31st. The airlines, internet, and
other national setups tend to use GMT. So, about 6:01pm on the 31st (0001
GMT), we will start seeing if all the worries are real or not.
Rita
never worried about it ... after all, I'm not using this thing to launch the
damned space shuttle! :)
Also, I heard a story ... have no idea if it's true or not ... that the real
problem is going to be 2029, or some such year ... as most Y2K fixes will only
work until that time. Well, hell ... I doubt this computer will still be
functional come 2029 ... not the way I pound on the keyboard ... :)
Blue ones!
--rita
Colin Fitzmaurice
<kr...@philly.infi.net> writes
>Christ sake! All this crap about Y2K and our personal computers crashing! I
>never worried about it ... after all, I'm not using this thing to launch the
>damned space shuttle! :)
I heard yesterday that the Shuttle won't work over ANY New Year. It
always has to be safely on the ground by New Years Eve.
BSBD
Colin Fitzmaurice http://www.tilstock.demon.co.uk
The Parachute Centre
Tilstock Airfield
Whitchurch
Shropshire SY13 2HA
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1948 841111
George Rabe
I know how you meant the "don't spread rumors" comment, but some people my not
ask a question because they are afraid that they will be considered a rumor
spreader.
I was pretty sure that the yy issue was a display issue only, but it is very
relaxing to hear it from someone who obviously knows what they are talking
about.
The guy who originally made me aware of it, is a program writer for a major
company, a person, who, until now I considered a very knowledgable in the
computer field. I'm glad I questioned his advice.
Thanks for the info and links.
George Rabe
George Rabe
Actually it is the shuttle crew that won't work over New Years. They want to party
too. ;>)
George Rabe
AL DELLA PENNA JR
hmmm ... 79 was a really good year for me :) . Unless you need a time printed on
something or are counting on something "going off or on" on a perticular date ,
who needs current time . Not the Govt , they dont work anyway!!
Have a safe New Year people ....... just think of blue skies
AL (REVID)
Colin Fitzmaurice
<Cincy...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Colin
>
>Actually it is the shuttle crew that won't work over New Years. They want to
>party
>too. ;>)
>
>George Rabe
I forgot, there's a Brit on board :)
While we're bullshitting about Y2K etc., I've got an old machine
(amongst others) running Windows 3.1. I've basically written it off for
use in the New Year but does anyone have any tips for Win 3x?
And no, it's not important enough to me to get old downloading stuff
from the Microsoft website :)
Brian Bo
> While we're bullshitting about Y2K etc., I've got an old machine
> (amongst others) running Windows 3.1. I've basically written it off for
> use in the New Year but does anyone have any tips for Win 3x?
>
> And no, it's not important enough to me to get old downloading stuff
> from the Microsoft website :)
>
> BSBD
>
> Colin Fitzmaurice http://www.tilstock.demon.co.uk
I believe that Win 3.x does not qualify for any Y2K compliance. Just make
sure you have any important docs backed up, and then see what it will do at
12:01.
I have a call into a friend that has more Win 3.x experience than I do, I am
curious on this one myself. If I find anything out, I will email ya.
BTW, in my earlier post I mentioned that I don't fear any computers or
applications crashing on me this Friday. What I do fear is the other stupid
people in this world (ie, terrorists, opportunists).
I am sure most people heard that Seatlle canceled its huge party from fear
of violence. Then I saw this item today on Yahoo News:
Explosives Stolen From California Police Bunker
FRESNO, Calif. (Reuters) - About 200 pounds (90 kg) of explosives has been
stolen from a police bomb squad bunker in Fresno, California, raising
authorities' millennial jitters two days before New Year's Eve.
``We have a great concern, and we're not going to hide that concern,''
Fresno Police Chief Ed Winchester was quoted as saying in Wednesday's
Fresno Bee newspaper.
The explosives, which included about 125 pounds (57 kg) of dynamite and the
military explosive C4 as well as 75 pounds (34 kg) of gunpowder, were taken
sometime between Sunday and Monday from a small concrete bunker in a rural
area outside Fresno. The city is about 150 miles (240 km) east of San
Francisco.
Officials said the stolen explosives could be enough to blow up a car or
small building but noted that both blasting caps and more powerful
explosives had been left behind -- a sign that the theft may have been
committed by amateurs.
``We don't know if its connected in any way to the year, the time of the
year, the New Year's Eve celebration. And we hate to speculate on anything
like that,'' police Lt. Andy Hall told reporters on Wednesday.
Nevertheless, Winchester said police, with the help of the U.S. Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, were profiling suspects with known
anti-government views as well as reassessing security plans for Friday's New
Year's Eve celebrations.
``We're looking at increasing security for New Year's, and we're
reassessing our deployment in light of this,'' Winchester told the Bee.
``We are taking a look at potential targets within our city.''
Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson said the city's planned millennium celebrations
would go ahead on schedule, adding that there was no evidence any of the
stolen explosives were going to be used in Fresno.
In Sacramento this month, authorities arrested two suspected members of a
California militia group who allegedly were part of a plot to blow up a
huge propane storage facility.
Both men have pleaded not guilty to federal weapons charges and saidthrough
their lawyers they knew nothing about the alleged plot, which officials say
was intended to spark a rebellion against the U.S. government.
_________
Seems to me that a night jump is gonna be the safest way to spend the New
Year. Wish I was gonna be at a DZ that night.
Blue Skies
Brian Bo
marcus
Povl H. Pedersen
"Brian Bo" <chasing...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s6jab5...@news.supernews.com...
> The only thing that I am scared of on Y2K is other people, not my computer
> crashing. In fact, one of the bigger international clients that uses my
> company is so certain that nothing is going to be going wrong at Midnight,
> they are going to launch the new Payroll system at 12:01 am on Jan 1.
Just to be safe, I am making a fresh complete backup tomorrow, and shutting
down all the computers that does not need to be online. There might come a
short
power outage, and I do not want workstations not on an UPS to suffer.
But I do not see any Y2K problem either, apart from people, computer vira,
people,
old computers (Pentium 75MHz and older), stupid people, people in panic.
> IMO, the people spreading Y2K rumors are basically as credible as the guy
on
> the street corner wearing a poster board sign saying "the end of the world
> is near, repent!"
As an IT professional, I agree.
> I worked with 42 "Y2K Panicked" people today. They had all heard some new
> rumor or such. After personally checking out their system, and running
Y2K
> test on it (even as simple as setting the date ahead a couple of days and
> testing that the Real Time Clock can handle the turnover), I did not
> discover one Y2K issue.
My fathers computer is too old, but we do not do anything to it. Ijust told
him he might have to set the clock on every power-on.
> Also, if there really is going to be a problem, we will actually start
> seeing the problem before Midnight on the 31st. The airlines, internet,
and
> other national setups tend to use GMT. So, about 6:01pm on the 31st (0001
> GMT), we will start seeing if all the worries are real or not.
How about Australia ? And how about all the chips with timers they have
been talking about ? Their internal clock probably have a deviation that
might offset the problems more than 24 hours.
I know for sure that traffic lights in Denmark installed more than 4 years
ago definitely was NOT Y2K compliant. But I do not know what that means.
Povl H. Pedersen
"Rita" <kr...@philly.infi.net> wrote in message
news:3869E1E0...@philly.infi.net...
> Christ sake! All this crap about Y2K and our personal computers crashing!
I
> never worried about it ... after all, I'm not using this thing to launch
the
> damned space shuttle! :)
>
real
> problem is going to be 2029, or some such year ... as most Y2K fixes will
only
> work until that time. Well, hell ... I doubt this computer will still be
> functional come 2029 ... not the way I pound on the keyboard ... :)
The problem is, that unix counts number of seconds since 1970, so the 32-bit
integer will overflow in 2039. But most unices are getting upgraded to
64-bit
versions, and people are already planning to increase the counter to 64 bit.
Windows is desgined to crash every day no matter what.
Chris Bowley
> local morning radio talk shows and spread this rumor. I think every
> computer guy must have called in and corrected this guy. This particular
> morning show took 4 phone calls after this guy proclaimed how Windows was
> going to crash because it only uses two digits in the date field.....all 4
> of these guys explain how wrong this guy was.
>
> What people don't realize is that setting in the "Regional Settings" is
only
> a personal preference as to how your date is going to be displayed in the
> display field in areas such as Windows Explorer.
>
This isn't necessarily true. In my last job, supporting a large system with
100+ MTS components written in VC++, a backend workflow system, SQL Server
database, etc. and a front end written in VB, somebody, fortunately noticed
that the input date validation was being done using VB to convert whatever
the user entered into the canonical short date format and from there to a
proper Date. The short date format version would not have been visible to
the user. It was a weird way to do it and it would definitely have failed
come Y2K. Not only that but it was very likely to fail if the user changed
the short date format. As I understand it the original programmers picked up
the algorithm from somewhere else so this may not be the only system to
contain it.
Skydiver
and let it ran through, let me tell you there is a PROBLEM. At first I
didn't notice it, but then my TV exploded, followed shortly by my radios. As
I was running out of my apartment, the freezer started throwing ice cubes my
way, I thought I was going to be safe, but then my washer spontaneously
combusted!!!! As if that wasn't bad enough, my dryer started throwing out
all of the missing socks I have been accumulating over the past few years. I
was almost out the door, when I discovered the lock was not Y2K compliant. I
would have died in the ensuing fire, but fortunately my windows are not
compliant, and they all exploded and fell out. I thus crawled out the window
to safety. I am writing this on a borrowed machine, but I tell you all to be
careful Y2K will be here soon!!!!!1
Brian Bo
Rita wrote <snip>
> > Also, I heard a story ... have no idea if it's true or not ... that the
> real
> > problem is going to be 2029, or some such year ... as most Y2K fixes
will
> only
> > work until that time. Well, hell ... I doubt this computer will still
be
> > functional come 2029 ... not the way I pound on the keyboard ... :)
>
POVL wrote:
> The problem is, that unix counts number of seconds since 1970, so the
32-bit
> integer will overflow in 2039. But most unices are getting upgraded to
> 64-bit
> versions, and people are already planning to increase the counter to 64
bit.
>
> Windows is desgined to crash every day no matter what.
Actually, while what you say about the Unix epoch date is true, Rita is
refering to something else. Alot of programmers have done a temporary fix
for Y2K issues. This way if they still are using two digits, 70-30 will be
the same as 1970-2030, while two digit dates 31-69 will all be 1900 numbers.
Of course that is 30 years away, so we shouldn't have to worry for a while,
right? (Which is the same thing that was said in 1972 when Y2K issues were
first discussed).
Brian Bo
All this computer talk is making me miss skydiving even more....is it next
season yet? (and I can't go south for the season since I am out of vacation
days, and I ain't quite an A yet).
Brian Bo
<snip>
I wrote:
> > Also, if there really is going to be a problem, we will actually start
> > seeing the problem before Midnight on the 31st. The airlines, internet,
> and
> > other national setups tend to use GMT. So, about 6:01pm on the 31st
(0001
> > GMT), we will start seeing if all the worries are real or not.
Povl said:
> How about Australia ? And how about all the chips with timers they have
> been talking about ? Their internal clock probably have a deviation that
> might offset the problems more than 24 hours.
> I know for sure that traffic lights in Denmark installed more than 4 years
> ago definitely was NOT Y2K compliant. But I do not know what that means.
Now you know why we all moved west to America....we will let you guys be the
test subjects....I figure that if stuff starts to blow up over in Austrtalia
and Europe, that should give us enough time to unplug everything over here!
Just make sure you leave your skydiving gear in a fireproof box for us so
that we can dig it up after the fires burn out over there.
Happy New Year
Povl H. Pedersen
"Colin Fitzmaurice" <co...@tilstock.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yVUePGAS...@tilstock.demon.co.uk...
> While we're bullshitting about Y2K etc., I've got an old machine
> (amongst others) running Windows 3.1. I've basically written it off for
> use in the New Year but does anyone have any tips for Win 3x?
Yeah. Just use it. Y2K is an exageration. You probably have set the
time on each reboot or cold start, but that is probably it. Files
may also get wrong timestamps.
Your software will work as usual.
Povl H. Pedersen
> Brian
>
> I know how you meant the "don't spread rumors" comment, but some people my
not
> ask a question because they are afraid that they will be considered a
rumor
> spreader.
>
> I was pretty sure that the yy issue was a display issue only, but it is
very
> relaxing to hear it from someone who obviously knows what they are talking
> about.
Ne aware also, that leap day might be a problem. Every year which is a
multiple
of 4 is a leap year, unless it is a multiple by 100. But if it is a multiple
of
400, it is a leap-year anyway. And I think this is not the case if it is a
multipla
of 1600.
Many lazy programmers might have skipped this long sequence of if
statements,
as they would never come to that anyway.
We also have some leap seconds this newyear, and at other times arround the
year,
so make sure you synchronize your PC to a NTP (Network Time protocol)
server.
jkallend
<po...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
>
>
> I know for sure that traffic lights in Denmark installed more than 4 years
> ago definitely was NOT Y2K compliant. But I do not know what that means.
>
>
If you're lucky the traffic lights will fail and the flow of traffic
will be
considerably improved over normal. They are a solution to the
traffic problems of the 1920s.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
A DIEING BREED
><po...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I know for sure that traffic lights in Denmark installed more than 4 years
>> ago definitely was NOT Y2K compliant. But I do not know what that means.
>>
>>
>
>If you're lucky the traffic lights will fail and the flow of traffic
>will be
>considerably improved over normal. They are a solution to the
>traffic problems of the 1920s.
>
Shootem out with one of them 30/30 saddle rifles Chuck sed ewe described as
what yawl's army carries over there & see whut happens Polv rootem tootem
cowboy!
hahahahahahahahaha :-* snuffy
sheep can't coyotes can
Cypress or not fly like ewe don't have one, stay perimeter & altitude aware,
pull yer handles in order, Got questions research USPA2000 lot of dum
political answers der
Stig Arne Bye
>
> In article <386A23FA...@worldnet.att.net>, George Rabe
> <Cincy...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >Colin
> >
> >Actually it is the shuttle crew that won't work over New Years. They want to
> >party
> >too. ;>)
> >
> >George Rabe
>
> I forgot, there's a Brit on board :)
>
> (amongst others) running Windows 3.1. I've basically written it off for
> use in the New Year but does anyone have any tips for Win 3x?
>
> from the Microsoft website :)
I have a CD-ROM about the Y2K problem that someone I know in Microsoft
sent me free. That CD-ROM contain 511 MB of data in 12,873 files!
Amongst the content on this CD-ROM, there is a comprehensive list of
almost ALL Microsoft products that has been released to date and whether
they are Y2K compliant or not. The CD-DOM do also contain all necessary
patches for many Microsoft products that require patches installed to be
Y2K compliant.
Well, when I check up Windows 3.1 on the CD-ROM, I got the following
result:
Product Name: Windows 3.1
Product: Operating System (16 bit)
Version(s): 3.1 / 3.1x
Language(s): (miscellaneous)
Release Date: March 10, 1992
Product Binding(s): MS-DOS 5.0 or later
Y2K Compliant: Yes (with some exceptions as shown below)
Date Validity Range: January 4, 1980 - December 31, 2035
Clock/Time Source: BIOS/RTC
Further informations about how this product handle dates:
DATES WITH 4-DIGIT YEARS:
Windows 3.1 store and handle dates internally using 4-digit years
with the range 1980 through 2035.
DATES WITH 2-DIGIT YEARS:
This is a function of the MS-DOSŽ operating system, not Windows 3.1
itself.
MS-DOSŽ can not display 4-digit years when using the DIR-command.
MS-DOSŽ do not accept changes in 2-digit years from year 2000 and
beyond. To accept correct date, a 4-digit code must be added to
the DATE-command (internally in COMMAND.COM). If this attempt fail,
this will cause the error message "Invalid date".
GENERAL:
The MS-DOSŽ DATE-command is the only MS-DOSŽ operating system command
that accept dates. Windows itself use GUI for date/time commands.
The exception is programs that make use of MS-DOSŽ-API. MS-DOSŽ-API
use displacements from the year 1980 to save dates. Whenever a
program get a date from MS-DOSŽ-API, the program must therefore add
1980 to the year to get the correct 4-digit year.
KNOWN DATE PROBLEMS IN WINDOWS 3.1:
The date can not be set to 02/29/2000 by using the mouse from
"Date/Time" in Control Panel. To set the correct date, you must
manually enter the correct date (29) by typing it from the keyboard.
Please note that this is only if you somehow have to set the date at
this specific date. If you do not use "Date/Time" in Control Panel
between 02/28/2000 and 03/01/2000, Windows 3.1 will automatically
and correct change the date to 02/29/2000.
COMMON AND KNOWN PROBLEMS WITH DATES:
Some PC's will reset the year back to 1980 or other invalid dates
when the system clock reach the year 2000. This problem is however
due to problems in the hardware and the BIOS, and not the MS-DOSŽ
operating system or Windows 3.1.
Stig Arne Bye
E-mail ......: sti...@online.no
Contact .....: ICQ UIN: 403349 / AOL IM Screen Name: VT480TFE
Snail-Mail ..: P.O.Box 169, NO-9915 Kirkenes, Norway
Homepage ....: http://home.sol.no/~stigbye/index.htm
bskyrat
anything to do with the operating systems or the programs etc. You do not
have to do anything with them period. The one thing you have to download
from Microsoft is the leap year patch and that's it. Most new Computers
bought in the past several years are Y2k compatible and a check is available
for this on your individual computer manufacturer's website.
Chris
bsk...@lcc.net
Rita
I heard that they are confident all of their systems are Y2K compliant, but since
the crew uses a multitude of computer systems, including simple laptops for many
of their daily chores, it was just decided that to "be on the safe side" it would
be prudent to have the shuttle on the ground at the turn of the century.
Can't say I would argue with that ...
Blue ones!
--rita
Rita
Blue ones!
--rita
A DIEING BREED
Brian Bo
a huge flying computer that also supplies your oxygen?
And to think, it wasn't even a computer glitch that caused the Challenger
tragedy....so I can understand why they wouldn't want to risk it.
Makes sense to me Rita.
Brian Bo (one of the few IT people that will be not at work tomorrow)
"Rita" <kr...@philly.infi.net> wrote in message
news:386B2D35...@philly.infi.net...
Iain Firkins
> Buy a Mac. Forget Y2K.
Buy an Amiga. Forget YanyK. It can handle years with 5 digits in them (talk
about planning for the future !! ).
--
53 jumps - 33m 57s freefall - Last jump: 16/10/99
A-100981
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/union/parachute/
"And once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return..." -
Leonardo Da Vinci
Rita
poor taxpayers and skydivers. :(
Blue ones!
--rita
Rita
Blue ones, you lucky bastard ... :)
--rita
mave...@hal-pc.org
>
> Now I heard something different.
>
> I heard that they are confident all of their systems are Y2K compliant, but since
> the crew uses a multitude of computer systems, including simple laptops for many
> of their daily chores, it was just decided that to "be on the safe side" it would
> be prudent to have the shuttle on the ground at the turn of the century.
> Colin Fitzmaurice wrote:
>
> > I heard yesterday that the Shuttle won't work over ANY New Year. It
> > always has to be safely on the ground by New Years Eve.
I hate to interject with actual facts here, but since I support the
Shuttle's onboard software, and was in the Mission Evaluation Room on
Christmas morning...
The shuttle, in fact, would rather not fly over any New Year. It counts
its clock time from the beginning of the year, and which particular
year turns over is not significant. Some ground systems may or may not
have been concerned about the 00 date, but since the onboard computers
are on as long as the orbiter itself is powered on, they wanted it down,
rolled in, post-landing checked out, and turned off before it was
getting even close. The main realtime ground monitoring system was
rewritten a few years ago, and it's Y2K compliant. Just about
everything has been tested for Y2K out the wazoo.
I was talking with a co-worker who's been around a long time about this,
and while he seems to remember at least one flight over a new year, I
don't find any record of it in any of the orbiters' histories. If it
came to be that the shuttle HAD to fly over a new year, it'd do it; we'd
have extra people onboard to monitor what was going on in the shifts
right before and right after its clocktime clock rolled over, and we'd
probably uplink a new state vector for its operation immediately after
the New Year. There have been tests of its software covering this
(there have been tests of just about every scenario people could think
of, no matter how ridiculous).
Trust me, NASA wouldn't fly over Christmas, and then not fly over New
Year's to allow people to party...
Wendy W.
Thom Lyons
say because going any lower means you might not get your reserve out
in time if you need it! :-)
Cheers
Thom Lyons
D-1903
Australia