On 14 Dec, Carl E. Porter <rosebud@gtec.com> wrote: > I agree with Larry the problem was with the first digit 2. I think the > problem has been blown out of all proportion. almost all PCs can count to > 2000!!! That's not the point. To minimalise the amount of memory space used programmers of chips and software often did not think of consequences of using only the last two digits to define a date and often did not think that their hard/software would still be in use at the turn of the century. I don't think it has been blown out of proportion and one of my numerous devices has decided it is 2099 already. The extent of the problem has not been understood and much can be gleaned from websites ... if you want the links contact me but do it soon 'cos even the WWW might not work properly for more than a few days. If it continues to work I will be very relieved although there are more important consequences to be concerned about! > > > Does this mean that we may have to go through this Y2K anxiety > > > all over > > >again next year? Anne February 2000 might be a problem. Regards to fellow O'Neills Graham O'Neill -- ________________________ "Out here on the perimeter there are no stars" | _|||__ | Graham O'Neill on a Acorn RiscPC 600 | -------/ _ \------ | ------ goneill@argonet.co.uk ------ | =M25===| |_| |====== | | -------\_______/------ | "If your attack is going really well ... | ||| | it's an ambush!" | A10 | --------------------------