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: Christine Traut who wrote (4579)	3/12/1999 4:21:00 PM
From: Christine Traut	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

I just spent ten minutes confirming why Y2K is a much bigger issue than most people think it is. How many people know that almost all Microsoft software is going to have to be patched in order to be Y2K compliant? I sure don't hear the press talking about this. I had lunch with one of my 30 something tech friends and he was clueless - he works for a consulting firm too. So I double checked. First, here is Microsoft's definition of compliant: <<The product fully meets Microsoft's standard of compliance. May have prerequisite patch or service pack for compliance.>> Let me run that by you again - it's compliant - it you are smart enough to find the right patch on Microsoft's internet site and know how to apply it. And, by the way, don't assume that that patch is really good. There is another area on Microsoft's Y2K site where you can check the latest date when there was a change to the patches - yep, they are still hot. It's kinda like playing Russian roulette - will they have things fixed in time....will millions of customers successfully update their software.... What kind of products am I talking about - ones that need to be fixed? Oh, things like, Internet Explorer.....Anyone out there using that? Of course, if you just asked Microsoft, they would say that their products are Y2K compliant. No details. No word about having to apply software patches. And certainly no word that those software patches are still changing. Quite a lot. And this also means that people who are buying new PCs today are not getting machines that are Y2K compliant. Just promises that the software will be fixed, eventually. Honest question: why do you think the press is not picking up on this?