Re: The Y2K problem

["R Tennenbaum" raphaelt@xxxxxxxx]

On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 10:31:49 -0600, Richard Giering wrote:

>It is my understanding that any Y2K problem that
>XYW or XW faces is NOT a problem for the word
>processor BUT is a BIOS problem. Both ACER and
>AMI weh sites hav BIOS upgrades available that
>addresses the problem.
> Am I wrong and is TTG on the hook or is it a
>BIOS problem?
>Dick Giering (dick.giering@xxxxxxxx)

Yes, no, and no. It is potentially a BIOS problem, but not just a BIOS
problem, it's potentially an OS problem and an application problem. To
the best of my knowledge, MS won't warrant Windows3.1 as Y2k, period.
I believe they say they're pretty sure that W95 is okay but the only
one they're willing to guarantee is W98 (I don't know about the NT
versions).

OS/2 version 3 after fixpack 26 (I think) is supposed to be Y2k, and I
think version 4 from the start, but I'm not certain.

Rafe T.
>
>Peter Evans wrote:
>
>> Phyllis Gallicchio:
>>
>> >We have alot of different versions of xywrite
>> >here at our newspaper. We need to know is they
>> >are y2k compliant.
>>
>> Great news, Phyllis! Anyone who uses any version of XyWrite on
or after 1 January of what Microsoft terms 2000 (more
bombastically, "the year 2000") is instantly transported back to
1900. Order yourself some bloomers and get ready for some serious
(but modest) cycling and croquet--and try to accustom yourself to
the pervasive pong of cigars.
>> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>> Peter Evans