SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : CSHK CASHCO MANAGEMENT Y2K

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rick who wrote (6146)12/10/1998 12:07:00 PM
From: TEDennis  Read Replies (2) of 7491
 
Rick: Nice work! Your scenario sounds reasonable.

It brings up yet another gotcha' that the toolettes have to worry about. The date/time stamp on all of the MV*.DLL files is the same as the time stamp on the rest of the MSWorks files: 8/1/97 @ 12:00AM.

So, even though the Media Viewer subset was probably updated and created months before, it was "touched" on the date of the MSWorks final create. Theoretically, there could be many date/time stamps of the same module distributed with different applications, yet they could all refer to the same set of object code. This will require multiple entries in the database, even though there is only one set of code. Keeping the database current will be a full time job.

How about the Windows DLL's and third party API's that are distributed with other third party applications. Who "manufactured" them? Will they be reported multiple times? One in the directory where the product was installed, and another in the Windows System directory, and another in other applications that use them? And, is there any attempt to identify the duplicates? Of course, they could all be the same module with different date/time stamps. Maybe a smart object code compare needs to be done?

Sure is a pretty day.

TED
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext