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: John Mansfield who wrote (1091)	2/22/1998 6:11:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Dave Hall: 'start calling for Year 2000 READY' 'Folks, I coming to the conclusion that there is no such thing as Year 2000 COMPLIANT. There are too many variations, standards, solution methods, etc. I suggest that we stop calling for Year 2000 compliance and start calling for Year 2000 READY. The definition would be as follows: Year 2000 Ready - the equipment/application/etc. will operate as documented in 19XX, 2000, 20XX, etc. using the documented method. Such a requirement would eliminate a lot of arguments and still would provide the following uses: 1. Everyone buying the equipment/application/etc. would know exactly what it will do in every year and every circumstance (looking ahead, looking back, cross centuries, etc>). 2. Everyone would know HOW the equipment/application/etc. does this (windowing, encapsulation, expansion, etc.). 3. Everyone would know what bridging was necessary to incorporate the equipment/application/etc. into their system. 4. Vendors would have less incentive to muddle, weasel word, etc. the warranty and license. 5. The legal aspects would be easier to handle (I think, any lawyer out there want to comment on this one?). 6. Everyone could get real answers to their questionaires on Year 2000 aspects of equipment/applications/etc. Discussion on this idea? Dave Hall Opinions are my own and not those of my employer dhall@enteract.com' ---- From: "david c hall/tatd/73158" <ftrdch@naic.wpafb.af.mil> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:37:11 -0500 To: year2000-discuss@year2000.com Subject: Year 2000 Ready: 'Opinion Poll'

To: John Mansfield who wrote (1091)	2/22/1998 6:29:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

'only 22 months left... 90% to do in 22 months is 4% per month' 'This sounds like further evidence to me that Contingency Planning needs to spring to the top of the pile.' ________________________________ 'Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:43:01 GMT To: year2000-discuss@year2000.com From: Graham Ride <g.ride@cybermetrix.co.uk> Subject: Re: Progress on projects Chas Did you get any feel for when they started their projects? There are only 22 months left... 90% to do in 22 months is 4% per month..if they started before December 1997 they have no chance at this rate. That's on a linear basis but like most projects it'll be a lazy 'S' progress so maybe we could give them a couple of months grace. This sounds like further evidence to me that Contingency Planning needs to spring to the top of the pile. That involves a different set of skills and squarely places the issue as a Business problem like we've (the collective we) been saying for 'how many years?'. Graham >Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:50:13 -0500 >From: Chas Mitchell <cmitchel@nmi2000.com> >To: Year2000 <year2000-discuss@year2000.com> >Subject: Progress on projects > >We held a seminar for the McCabe toolset in Toronto last week, and in he course of the conversations it had become obvious that no company epresented at the seminar was more than 10% of the way thru their project. These were all large organisations, with many lines of code to remediate and test. Is this prevalent, or is it "only in Canada?" with the base plans calling for at least 50% project time required for testing, this only leaves 11 months left to do everything else before the 'drop dead' date. Amazing. "If you get their heads out of the sand don't forget to get them to brush the sand out of their eyes! Awareness DOESN'T equal understanding." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Graham P P Ride, Cybermetrix Ltd. NEW! - Year 2000 Information Service on <http://www.cybermetrix.co.uk/plusinfo.html> '