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 (8560)	9/8/1999 9:27:00 AM
From: David Eddy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Cheeky - I have a basic understanding of Y too Kay. They years I have played with computers, gizmos, and my own research on Y2K is enough for me to conclude Y2K is not a concern for myself, family, or my company. What sort of business? You're in a business that isn't dependant on upstream suppliers & downstream customers? Sounds like a great biz to be in. Reason I keep probing is that I'm just mystified how anyone can conclude Y2K isn't a problem. Does an outfit like CitiBank spending US$1 billion mean that they're unique or that they've been scammed by slick consultants with a great sales pitch? Try these facts... (on a global basis) - 15,000 IBM mainframes (big iron) - 40,000 IBM midrange - 400,000 IBM another midrange - 500,000 DEC VAX midrange ...ignoring, Wang, Prime, Data General, Xerox, AT&T, Perkin-Elmer & dozens of other hardware makers. And then down at the bottom of the pyramid on the desktop there's a catalog of desktop software (WinTel, Mac, Unix, Commodore, Tandy, etc.) - 3056 vendors - 21,000 products And these numbers obviously ignore both dead vendors (with products still in daily use) and the custom written stuff. So tell me once again why running out of two digit numbers isn't a problem? Tell me what I'm missing. - David