🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3558793d...@news.odyssey.on.ca>,
Pundit Gainsay <yuk...@odyssey.on.ca> wrote:

>I suppose that anyone who is a naysayer could always change the date
>on their computer to some time in the next century and use it for a few
>weeks.

Sure.  And all the programs which use the system date for timestamping
records and storing transaction times will be completely screwed up.


>I'd suggest making a boot disk if you have a really ancient computer
>though.

"really ancient computers" don't have boot disks.

Are you aware that "really ancient computers" don't fit comfortably on
an average desktop?


>Microsoft has already publically identified some glitches they will
>provide patches for via their website for some minor glitches in Windows 3.1,
>Windows 95 and Microsoft Office.

Last I heard:  Microsoft thinks that it will have Win 3.1 Y2K
compliant, but probably won't be able to fix its other operating
systems in time.


>Most are minor but remember that some
>systems in the world's infastructure are ancient.  If recent software has Y2K
>glitches when they were programming to avoid them how trustworthy is
>code written 20 years ago for say a nuclear reactor.  You don't know until you
>look.

Sadly, a large portion of US management is still unwilling to look.


-- 
Quote of the Week:  "I have been in peoples kill file since the day I was
born ... whether on the internet or in the physical world."  Monica I.,
seattle.general icon.