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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (25191)	1/1/1999 7:12:00 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116785

MAJOR FLAWS FOUND IN "REPAIRED" SYSTEMS [News] When a company announces they've completed Y2K repairs, should you believe them? New evidence from Unisys suggests you shouldn't. As this Financial Times story (link below) reports, "Checks by some of the biggest corporations in the U.S. and Europe have revealed serious flaws in work already undertaken to tackle the millennium computer bomb." "Some of the issues we found would have taken their systems down, '' said David Palmester, Year 2000 program manager for Unisys. "The quality of testing they have undertaken is very worrying.'' And Ben Levy, the vice president of marketing and sales for Crystal Systems Solutions, an Israeli information technology group, said, "In several cases we found date issues were either missed, not converted or converted wrongly. The problem is that one mistake in one program can cause a major problem to a business.'' WHAT'S IT MEAN? [Commentary] It means, simply put, that announcements of "we're done!" may be worthless. Until the code it thoroughly checked and tested by an outside firm, a process that takes a MINIMUM of three months to do properly, it is still suspect. As the story reports, more than 20 of Britain's top 100 companies still had critical problems in systems they thought were "compliant." This is a crucial element now being overlooked by almost everybody. With the timelines now being put forth (like the EPA timeline above), companies are not allowing sufficient time for outside verification. Most organizations are attempting "seat of your pants" repair efforts that magically have everything finished just in the nick of time. These plans fail to take into account the now-known problem of "bad repairs." Even when repairs are completed, are they correct? These verification companies mentioned in the story even found serious problems after the companies had completed their own internal testing. Story at: sjmercury.com Thanks to Y2k newswire.