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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Rubakh who wrote (6358)	11/21/1997 1:09:00 AM
From: Patricia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

This article appeared in Chicago Tribune....in 2 parts Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 Source: By William Gruber, Tribune Staff Writer. Section: BUSINESS Parts: 1 Memo: BANKING. Copyright Chicago Tribune SCRAMBLE TO CATCH YEAR 2000 BUG IS ON COMPANIES ARE FRANTICALLY REWRITING MILLIONS OF LINES OF COMPUTER CODE, AT A COST OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, TO AVOID THE NIGHTMARE OF THE MILLENNIUM. INDUSTRY'S MAJOR WORRY: WEAK LINKS The computer at a suburban bank recently flagged a business loan to be paid beyond the year 2003 as more than 90 years past due. The Millennium Bug may already be at work. "It showed up and was easily correctable," said William C. Gooch Jr., president and chief executive officer of Community Bank of Elmhurst. "We caught it, and the notice never went out to our customer." But the computer glitch at his bank, harmless as it was, could be symptomatic of a possible major epidemic if financial institutions and other businesses around the world haven't adjusted their systems to recognize the year 2000 after New Year's Eve in 1999. Many computers, especially older models, were designed to track only the last two digits of a four-digit date. The nightmare is that they will read 1900 when their final two digits hit 00 in a little more than two years. To solve the problem, First Chicago NBD Corp., parent of First Chicago, has set up four "conversion factories"--in Chicago, Detroit and in Bombay and Madras, India-- where hundreds of coders and programmers are converting the bank's vast number of records line by line. The bank also has hired coders from the former communist countries in Eastern Europe who are working in the U.S. on a so-called green-card immigration status. Testing the converted or replaced computer systems "occupies 60 percent of our time," said Pen Hollist, senior vice president and head of the First Chicago NBD's century date program. Hollist puts the bank's cost of recoding its records at $1.01 per line, well under the industry estimate of $1.30 to $1.40 per line by the Gartner Group, a research firm in Stamford, Conn. The recoding of records is only part of the job, Hollist noted. Preparing for the year 2000 also involves making sure the bank's physical facilities controlled by computers--its automated teller machines, elevators, security alarms, desk-top units and other office equipment and even its vaults--will work properly on Jan. 1, 2000. No one really knows what the final cost of adjusting the hardware, software and programming will be. The Gartner Group earlier this year put the cost at between $300 billion and $600 billion. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate financial services and technology subcommittee, estimated the costs of litigation that might stem from the year 2000 problem could exceed $1 trillion if it isn't resolved. Chase Manhattan Corp., the nation's largest banking firm, has budgeted $250 million to convert its worldwide system by the end of 1998 as federal regulators have mandated, leaving 1999 for testing the revamped machinery. Second-ranked Citicorp refused to disclose its estimated spending, but No. 3 BankAmerica Corp. said it expects to spend about the same amount as Chase. But BankAmerica's chairman, David Coulter, warned the final bill for what he called "a gigantic problem" might go higher.

To: Steve Rubakh who wrote (6358)	11/21/1997 11:51:00 AM
From: Clayleas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Steve, That was an interesting article you posted about Manufacturing Systems and the Year 2000. But with due respect, it does not belong on this thread. I am sure you are aware that, while TPRO works with manufacturing organizations, its work is limited to embedded systems. The article you posted refers to remediation of main frame systems. TPRO has a unique niche in the Y2K sector, but that fact is not well understood by people looking into the company. Posting the article you did or any other Y2K article that is not specifically related to embedded systems can only serve to confuse matters further. Similarly, any articles that refer to embedded systems, but only in areas where TPRO does not work, such as in satellites, VCRs, toasters, automobiles, etc. are equally off topic and should also be posted elsewhere. I would like to see a moratorium on all of the Y2K articles on this thread unless they are specificly applicable to TPRO or its business, i.e., embedded systems in the business sectors where they operate. Posting general Y2K articles here is misleading and therefore possibly even more damaging than all of the superfluous notes that Skip and others spoke against a couple of days ago. There are other active threads where those articles would be more appropriate. JMO Jim P.S. Steve, I enjoy most of your contributions. This note is to you only because your post just happened to be the one I came across when I got this "bee in my bonnet."