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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PINC - Planet City -- Software and Services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ztect who wrote (1012)	11/17/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: ztect	Respond to of 1754

ztect wrote: > > Dear Greg Kraft: > > Couple questions...... > > Who does PINC's accounting? A: (GK)Currently Pinc's auditors are Jones Jensen of Salt Lake City. > mcgladrey.com > Is it a major firm? > A: (GK)No they are not a big firm but the next financials Q4-98 will be audited by one of the big 8 > Do you intend to become a voluntary fully reporting company soon? A: (GK) Yes that is why next finacials [sic] will be from "big firm" (eg. price waterhouse). > Aside from maintaining the share price at $4.00 over which you have little control, have you established a schedule for fulfilling listing requirements for the "big boards"? > A: (GK) No, we have not established a schedule as we currently do not qualify but we will apply as soon as it is feasable [sic] to do so. > Thanks. > > z

To: ztect who wrote (1012)	11/18/1998 12:45:00 AM
From: TEDennis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1754

ztect: Re: "in your professional opinion, then are any of these under $50.00 products really worth it even for the small office or individual user who aren't very computer savvy and want to be safe rather than sorry?" This may sound a bit odd, but please bear with me for a moment while I explain. I think the "quick and dirty" products that check out (and fix, in some cases) the hardware glitch while ignoring the software environment could in some instances do more harm than good. In particular, the "casual" PC user who has heard of the Y2K problem might see a Y2K hardware test product on the shelf and buy it. He'll then test his PC, find out it's non-compliant, and then implement the fixes supplied by the product (assuming he's not PC-challenged and can do such things). He would then rerun his tests, and sure enough, his Y2K problem went away. Hooray! We have a happy customer, and he goes on about his business secure in the knowledge that the Y2K problem is over for him. He then gives his copy of the product to his buddy who does the same thing. (Well, we all know it happens, even though it's illegal.) Now, in January of 2000, our happy supposedly Y2K-compliant user balances his checkbook with a non-Y2K compliant version of Microsoft Money. All kinds of terrible things happen to his money records. But, the hardware checks out just fine. He was lulled into a false sense of security by a perfectly good hardware test. So, an innocent user who tries to save a few bucks and do-it-himself gets screwed. In these cases, the products do what they're supposed to ... but not what the customer NEEDS. What the customer NEEDS is a product that will identify ALL Y2K exposures. It'd be really great if there were a product that fixes them all, too. But, as far as I know, that doesn't exist today. And won't, unfortunately. Whoever tries to fix PC Y2K problems better have his act together. As you well know, the world is chock full of clueless people. Those people are Y2K-accidents waiting to happen. Regards, TED