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: foobert who wrote (1628)	5/4/1998 11:41:00 AM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 9818

Foobert, Great post man! I see I am not the only one here that has tested and items around the house and office to see how they work with the clock advanced to 2000+. I see you take a level headed approach to this. Nice to see, especially on this thread. I am running one of my computers set to the year 2009, and it works great. MS has a patch that fixes some bugs in Win95 (for Y2K), but so far the dates are good. In a dos box I see 03/05/2009 and in Windows Explorer I see 03/05/09. MS said you "MAY" have a problem if you don't install the patch. I haven't and it still works fine. My fax is still set to June 2000, works great. Note: I don't run Quicken on that computer for obvious reasons (computer advanced to 2009 when it's 1998). I look forward to your future posts. *Sire, Everythings Fine, in 2009* P.S. Have you noticed: Some people don't seem to get it with chips / products that don't use date field for any function. The links I posted showed many products that pass the Y2K compliance, some that use on a date field. Some people think there is something on a sub-electronic/atomic level that is going to fail. But why do all these engineers at these companies say their products are compliant - my guess is they know what they are talking about.