R: pretty much OFF TOPIC--Y2K (was: "XyWrite III+", "new guy")

["Adriano Ortile" md4929@xxxxxxxx]

Peter Evans wrote:
> But, to get back to the Y2K issue (or not), I have been
> Surprised to see so little mention on the various mailing lists I
frequent
> (or, if you prefer, defile) of BIOS updates. It could be that everybody
is
> Running new hardware (Gotta keep Taiwan's economy buoyant and its skies
> Pink!), but I suspect that a lot of people--curmudgeonly,
> Lightning-bolt-happy Xy users among them--use grubby old beige boxes with
> Hardware that was good enough in (say) '94 so is good enough now, dammit.
>
> Earlier this year I went to the Asus website and there learned that my
> 586/166 and my 586/133 (both with Asus motherboards) had BIOSes that
> Weren't ready for Y2K.
>
Peter,
I'm still working with a 486 DX 33 portable PC. It is not Y2K ready. What I
found on my PC about the Y2K problem is the following:
1.	If the new millennium arrives while you are working with the PC, then
the PC's clock is correctly updated.
2.	If the new millennium arrives while the PC is switched off, then the
clock is stopped on a bad date (Jan 4 '80). Simply, type in the correct
date when you switch it on.
I also verified that on some (all?) 386 PCs the clock fails even if the PC
is working during the dec 31 1999 midnight. Again, type in the new correct
date.
This is all what I found.
If really the Y2K PCs big problem is only this (as I suspect), then why be
worried?

Adriano Ortile
ortile@xxxxxxxx