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: flatsville who wrote (4489)	3/11/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: flatsville	Respond to of 9818

Another Big Oooops-- eb-mag.com Code problem could bring down fabs Networked factories vulnerable to year 2000 problem In the computer industry, it's the older computers with their ancient code that have set the stage for big problems in the year 2000. But in the semiconductor industry, it's the new plants that are expected to experience the most critical production problems, according to Harvey Wohlwend, program manager for the Y2K Initiative at Sematech Inc., Austin, TX. If no year 2000 solutions have been implemented in a 4- to 6-inch wafer fab built in the 1980s, then 55% to 65% of the tools are expected to fail. But fabs built in the 1990s "can expect 90% or more of their equipment to fail," says Wohlwend. You can thank networking for that. Fabs built years ago use tools that stand alone, so a failure of one won't affect the other tools in the fab. "There's more interdependency in new fabs," says Mark Meisner, director of equipment technology for Semico Research Corp., a semiconductor research firm in Phoenix. "There might be some embedded code on one piece of equipment that's not Y2K compliant. Because the systems are networked, it could cause the whole fab to halt production." That means it's critical for chip companies to make sure that every single tool in their fabs is compliant. And the job is frustratingly complex. Sematech started working on the problem a year ago when one of its member companies complained that it was being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the job, says Jess Blackburn, corporate communications manager at Sematech, whose 15 semiconductor manufacturer members are responsible for about half the world's total chip production. Each fab contains equipment from several different suppliers, requiring companies to get in touch with each supplier and test each tool. To expedite the process, Sematech listed more than 400 suppliers, each of whom had equipment in the fabs of at least two member companies. Sematech contacted each of these suppliers and asked them to run a set of procedures that puts their systems through a Y2K scenario. Although not all results are in, Sematech has found a high rate of failure in the tools so far, even in systems that have already received Y2K upgrades, according to Wohlwend. Results are being shared with Sematech's members on an ongoing basis. Jeopardy time With the world's semiconductor production in jeopardy, why haven't chip companies been more vocal about the problem? Because they are afraid of lawsuits, says Jeff Weir, director of communications for the Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade organization for chip manufacturers in San Jose. Chip companies fear that if they openly discuss manufacturing problems with a supplier's equipment, the statements could be used against them in a defamation lawsuit by the supplier. (In October, Congress passed a bill that says that Y2K statements made in good faith can't be used in lawsuits.) But the chips could hit the fan a lot earlier than the year 2000. Sematech's testing program has revealed that some tools are having trouble handling the Dec. 31, 1998, date for reasons unknown to Sematech, according to Wohlwend. With the end of the year fast approaching, the race is on to correct the problem or the industry may get a premature look at fab failure. --Gina Fraone ------------------------------------------------------ (I'll be checking this publication to see if there was a follow up article since the new year began.)

To: flatsville who wrote (4489)	3/11/1999 12:35:00 PM
From: Ken Salaets	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

>> "A lot of organizations try to boil Year 2000 testing down to one simple process," said H. Husmann, an independent consultant who specializes in data processing and reengineering. "But it's much more complicated than that." Indeed. Testing remediated systems in isolation is about as valid as sending a new driver out on the Beltway with no other cars on the road, and then declaring them ready to handle rush hour traffic! ggg. Ken