Jim or Meathead,
Can either of you explain, in words that non-techies such as I can understand, why Eastman's answer to the Y2K problem is not feasable?
I.e., they got rid of everything they had, replacing everything from desktops to servers with DELL (10,000 as I recall). The new equipment has the fixes: BIOS, software, hardware.... (I think steve says that won't do the job, but I admit to some problems understanding him from time to time). At least, Eastman thinks they found a fix. Therefore, I am guessing that their exposure to the problem is no longer internal, but external...
Sorry I'm rambling. In a nutshell...
1) Is that or is that not a fix? and why?
2) If it is, doesn't it make sense for a lot of companies to upgrade all their servers and desktops (to DELL<g>) rather than just try to fix their old Y2K susceptible code?
TIA, 3. |
