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.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (6167)	2/9/1999 9:36:00 PM
From: Spots	Respond to of 14778

Essentially it has always been a question of two versus four digits for a date. Four is twice two. Many records in files and databases have multiple dates, especially the records one encounters in business applications. You might increase the size of a record by 30-40 percent with a four-digit year. I'm not hung on these numbers, often much less, but whatever the number it increases your database by something on the order of that amount. Depending on how far back you go, it might break it by more or by less. Older equipment was more efficient with larger records but less efficient with records that didn't fit a multiple of something or other. It also increases retrieval and update times in various ways, some serious. Suffice it to say that the penalty was not trivial. If it were, we wouldn't have the current problem. Modern day pundits, in a word, don't know what they're talking about when they glibly refer to the shortsightedness of what went on before. Typical "judge you then by my situation now" thinking, which passes for analysis nowadays. Well, it's a crock of crap. Understand the context or shut your mouth is my reaction. As you may have noticed <gg>. This was not at all personal, zp. It was not directed at you in any way. You just provided the seed crystal <ggg>.