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 (2356)	8/3/1998 3:53:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

GM costs: dbweb.washingtonpost.com ' Company: General Motors For Period Ending: 3/31/98 Y2K Status Discussed: No Y2K Costs to Have Material Impact: Not discussed in filing Y2K Assessment (if any) Completed: Not discussed in filing Past Costs (in millions): $42 Estimated Future Costs (in millions): $523

To: John Mansfield who wrote (2356)	8/3/1998 5:51:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

'57. Author: David C. Hall ( dhall ) Date: Jul. 26 8:38 PM 1998 A Gartner Group poll of over 300 health care "integrated delivery systems" finds firms underspending on Yr2K and possible systems paralysis in their future. Health Care firms lag behind other industries in addressing the Year 2000 problems and that 87% of all healthcare organizations are in danger of systems failures within the next two years. The average IDS plans to spend $4.8 million on the year 2000 problems. We predict that they'll eventually pay closer to $10-20 million when legal fees, contingency plans, business continuity expenses and project management costs are factored in." Is your organization budgeting at this level? Dave Hall dhall@enteract.com 58. Author: David C. Hall ( dhall ) Date: Jul. 29 10:19 PM 1998 Two respondants on the RX2000 maillist have noted that they have found several items of equipment have date impacts during the 98/99 rollover. Neither will state what that equipment is, but this does put another test date series on your plate. You will need to test and ask vendors for item compliance in 1999 as well as 2000. I know of no vendor that has stated that they are testing their equipment for the 98/99 rollover. Are there any? If any of you demand exact knowledge of what the equipment items are before testing, I submit that you are playing Russian Roulette with your hospital's future and your patients health. Since some impacts have been found, it behooves us to start checking out our equipment. Your requirement is to assume that your facility has massive risks from date impacts in its equipment and systems and then proceed to prove or disprove that statement. Dave Hall dhall@enteract.com