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 (5756)	5/21/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: Radiosport	Respond to of 9818

"But there is no standard for Year 2000 work," Mr Casey said. "So we talk about being 'Year 2000 capable', and all our motherboards fit that description." From Intel's webpage: intel.com What's the difference between "Year 2000 Capable," "year 2000 compliant", "year 2000 ready," and "year 2000 certified"? There is no generally accepted standard for how computer hardware and software should handle the transition to year 2000. Intel uses its own definition of "Year 2000 Capable" when referring to the capability of Intel products. The definition that we use is similar to definitions used by some other manufacturers. When you use an Intel product, according to the documentation you received with it, that has been rated as "Year 2000 Capable" by Intel, you can depend on the following: 1. It will accurately use and display dates between 1999 and 2000; 2. It can do this only if the other parts of your system also are capable of using and displaying dates correctly; 3. The first two points above apply only if you use the product as a whole, and do not take it apart. Gosh, Intel motherboards work all the way up until 1-1-2000??? What do I do next year? :) Sounds more like it should be called "Year 1999 Capable". JK

To: flatsville who wrote (5756)	5/21/1999 12:42:00 PM
From: Radiosport	Respond to of 9818

"Many software programs, including Unix, bypass the BIOS and read the real-time clock directly, therefore interpreting the year as 1900. Did you read that part about Dallas Semiconductors? Only three additional dollars for a compliant clock, but they are not doing it? This is what I was afraid of...This is why I declared a moratorium on purchases of computers. The Dallas clocks have an additional register containing the century count. Putting one of these IC's onto your motherboard would make absolutely no difference, since neither the bios, DOS, Windows OS, nor any S/W that reads the clock directly will read the century register. Until the hardware manufacturers meet and agree on a standard format and address for a century register, the S/W writers will not try to use one. If Unix and other S/W reads the clock directly and sets it's date to 1900 next year, it's not the fault of the hardware, it's the fault of the programmers that ported Unix to a hardware platform with only a 2 digit year, and who didn't impliment a century rollover in S/W. For a motherboard and it's BIOS to read a two digit year and call any year less than 80 20xx instead of 19xx is perfectly acceptable to me. While mainframe programs get patched, added to, and seemingly live forever, I don't expect my motherboard to be in use even 5 years from now. JK