Re: The Y2K problem

[Leslie Bialler lb136@xxxxxxxx]

R Tennenbaum wrote:
>
> 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).
>

Rafe,

When you think about that, this is an outrage! IMHO there is simply no
excuse for any software produced after, oh say 1992, not to be Y2K
compliant. One can accept the often-stated excuse that developers before
that time never imagined their software would still be in use at the
turn of the century, but by the early 1990s it should have become
perfectly obvious that much of the software would still be around. Heck!
As recently as last January an author sent me a project on a 5.25"
floppy, and I just received a disk from an old Columbia hand who still
uses Wordstar.

And of course there's no need to speak of the well known computer
illiteracy among top management, interested in cost-cutting, that
persists to this day.

It seems to me that the developers knew danged well what was going to
happen and let it happen in hopes (fulfilled) of receiving big bucks
now.


--
Leslie Bialler
Columbia University Press
lb136@xxxxxxxx