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 : Peritus Software Services (PTUS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hardware Heister who wrote (1361)	6/5/1998 9:05:00 PM
From: Big Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1960

Dear HH: Given your background and hands-on experience, your comments certainly have credibility and makes sense intuitively. However, I think that you're aware of the fact that of all the federal agencies only the Social Security Administration is meeting its milestones in correcting the Y2K problem. However, SSA has been working on this problem for 10 years! Most federal, foreign, state and local governments are behind schedule. Same is true of the private sector. See post #1275. A snippet follows: "Y2K Contracts Reach a Record Pace As Companies Fail To Make Deadlines By: Stacy Collett In opening talks with prospective Year 2000 clients, Electronic Data Systems Corp.'s Tim Morton doesn't mince words when breaking the harsh news: "Don't plan on resolving all of your Year 2000 issues in time." At this late date, time definitely is working against them. "It's the 80/20 rule," says Morton, vice president of operations for EDS' CIO Services 2000. "What are 20 percent of the applications that run 80 percent of the business? Let's go after them first, and as time and resources permit, we'll address the others." I've seen articles that give that two-to-four year timeframe. But, using commonsense you're right in wondering why any rational company or government would string this along for years. Then, again, why have they waited this long? Expense of buying brand new mainframes and software? The unavailability of replacement software? Lack of programmers to develop programs that can replace specialized existing programs? You're in a much better position to answer these questions than I. I'm simply sharing what I've read and heard. You've probably read the same opinions elsewhere.

To: Hardware Heister who wrote (1361)	6/6/1998 2:22:00 PM
From: Big Dog	Respond to of 1960

USA Today had an article yesterday (6/5/98) on the private sector's progress in assessing and resolving the Y2K problem. It's not a pretty picture: Businesses fall short in Y2K fight By M.J. Zuckerman, USA TODAY (06/05/98) Corporate America has shown a woeful lack of progress in correcting the looming Year 2000 computer glitch, according to a report that will be the centerpiece of Senate hearings next week. In the first detailed analysis of reports filed to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, Triaxsys Research finds that: The nation's 250 most powerful corporations will spend at least $37 billion trying to correct the Year 2000 computer bug. That indicates a total national cost for business and government far exceeding the $50 billion estimated by the Federal Reserve. 58% of those companies do not even disclose Year 2000 costs, although including such costs in quarterly reports has been urged by the SEC. Progress by top corporations "falls considerably below levels necessary to avoid business disruption." Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, a vocal critic of government and industry response to the computer problem, is expected to introduce legislation Wednesday setting strict mandates for full reporting by corporations. The Year 2000 bug can cause computers to fail on Jan. 1, 2000, because millions of lines of older computer code are unable to process dates beyond the 1900s. The study also shows: Fewer than 60% of the firms have completed preliminary assessments to determine the extent of their problem. The majority of the reporting, the study says, was just "boilerplate" and offers little information useful to investors interested in how a company is handling potentially disruptive computer problems. Some corporate leaders say privately that acknowledging awareness of problems now could increase their exposure to legal liability later. President Clinton has appointed a Year 2000 czar to coordinate government and industry efforts. But Bennett and others want Clinton and Vice President Gore to provide more personal leadership.