Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (6401)	7/8/1999 8:27:00 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

>The other is that there really is no serious Y2K problem on the Wintel platform. Your call? << My guess is that there aren't a lot of problems with Wintel... it's embedded processors in the energy/manufacturing/transportation industries I'm concerned about, as well as mainframes. FWIW Andy

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (6401)	7/8/1999 10:09:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Respond to of 9818

Cheeky - The other is that there really is no serious Y2K problem on the Wintel platform. Try this little experiment... get someone with access to code (Assembler would be the good, but COBOL, or C will do fine) to print out a page of code... one page from a mainframe application & one from a WinTell application. Now see if you can tell which page of code came from which platform. Moral... code is code, it doesn't matter one bit what platform it runs on... mainframe, WinTel, Unix, whatever. It all depends on the care with which it was written. Just because the Macintosh operating system makes native use of 4 digit years, does not also lead to the safe conclusion that all Macintosh applications are Y2Kok. If this line of thought were valid, Macintoshes wouldn't be able to 'talk' to mainframes. - David