I finally finished that 'Microsoft and Y2K' white paper. Here are some overall conclusions for your enjoyment.
1) Microsoft is not going to get all of its mainstream products up to 'Y2K compliance'. And remember, Y2K compliance to Microsoft probably still needs a patch.
2) Some major corporate products, like NT 4.0 Server, are still in serious flux. There is a small possibility that they will not be ready at all, and a large possibility that they won't be ready in time for large companies to install them. So we will be running the enterprise on a bunch of patched up stuff.
3) Microsoft had to do an about face on Windows 95, because companies got really riled when ComputerWorld reported that they weren't going to make it Y2K compliant. I have reason to believe that they are going to fix it by 'windowing', arbitrarily assigning two digit years to a century. This strikes me as a pretty dangerous way to fix an operating system.
4) Microsoft is starting a FUD campaign on Y2K! (did anyone see Bill Gate's Venezuela quote today?) They are going to try to make Y2K into just another bug and see if they can get everyone to calm down. You know, their stuff is junk anyway, what's a few more bugs, a little more instability.
Gee, it's worth a try. Much better than admitting the massive design flaw of not seeing the year 2000 coming in, oh, 1998!
On the other hand, it puts Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) in a nasty situation. They've got Y2K issues also. And it's really bad for the IT leaders in large enterprises. The poor geeks who are responsible for keeping things running.
Think Microsoft might come out of this with just a little ill will? |
