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 : Y2K (Year 2000) Stocks: An Investment Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech who wrote (7725)	11/11/1997 11:51:00 AM
From: tech	Respond to of 13949

Great Britain: 75% of Managers Have No Y2K Plan Link: pa.press.net Comment: If the situation in Ireland sounds bad (under 50%), consider Great Britain. * * * * * * * Seventy-five per cent of UK manufacturers have no strategy to address the year 2000 date change problem, according to a survey released at the Computers in Manufacturing show. The research was sponsored by CIM '97, Compaq, Computervision, DataWorks, Digital, IBM, ICL, Microsoft, Minerva, SAP, Sun, SSI and Swan Production Software. It was carried out by Benchmark Research and based on over 1700 telephone interview. Results showed that two-thirds of manufacturers have no written guarantees that their systems are year 2000-compliant -- and half of the companies surveyed believe that their systems will not cope with Y2K. . . . "The problem is compounded by the fact that they often have embedded systems to consider as well as 'mainstream' hardware and software. "It really is true to say that the 'Millennium Problem' runs through manufacturing like letters through a stick of rock." ============== Who do I like in the Y2K game ? ConSyGen .... The Only Fully-Automated Solution

To: tech who wrote (7725)	11/11/1997 12:00:00 PM
From: tech	Respond to of 13949

Europe's Top 100 Firms: Not One Is Compliant Link: nando.net Comment: Time is running out. By now, we should have one example of one large firm that is Year 2000-compliant. We don't have one. Shouldn't there be at least one compliant firm? Somewhere? * * * * * * * * * "The magnitude of the task still at hand and the short time to complete it cannot be overestimated," said Richard Kramer, author of the study made for the U.S. investment bank, Goldman Sachs. The study found that just 43 out of the 100 biggest European companies had so far conducted a detailed investigation of the implications that the date change could have on their computer systems. Not one said that its software could handle the date change.

To: tech who wrote (7725)	11/11/1997 12:08:00 PM
From: tech	Respond to of 13949

50% of All US Organizations Won't Make the Testing Deadline Link: house.gov Comment: In hearings on November 4 to the House Subcommittee on Technology, a representative of the Gartner Group warned that American businesses are way behind. Gartner had prediucted 30% would be compliant in 1997. Not now. Gartner now predicts that 50% of all organizations will not be compliant in their mission-critical functions by the deadline to begin testing in 1998. Note: This means that all the hype about being ready for testing in December of 1998 is nonsense. Even if 50% make it -- a matter of faith ("the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen") -- the other 50% will not. When will the latter do their testing? If the initial code repair creates problems -- if!!! -- or total failure, how will they have time to repair the repair and test again? * * * * * * * While pessimism is often equated with hype, we have certainly become more pessimistic during the past year. User data in 1996 indicated that many organizations were planning to begin their efforts to remove year 2000 exposure in 1997. Therefore, we believed at the time that perhaps 30 percent of all organizations would be compliant by year-end 1997. Unfortunately, the volume of initial and estimating inquiries (some from the same organizations as in 1996), lead us to believe that while organizations were certainly aware of the problem, and some even completed high-level assessments, many, if not most, were not translating initial work into progress up the COMPARE scale. Therefore, our estimates must necessarily reflect that lack of progress. As of this writing, we believe that many organizations will make significant progress in 1997 and 1998, resulting in 50 percent Level IV compliance by year-end 1998. That is the good news. The bad news is that the remaining one of two organizations will be noncompliant in their mission-critical assets, with time horizons to failure rapidly approaching.