Bill, What do you mean in Paragraph 2 when you say "if you have a 386, etc. and use your machine for word processing and the internet sleep well tonight. I have tested over 100 486 and 386 class machines and have never found one that would pass Y2K." Should there be a "not" in that last sentence? Helen [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: Bil Brasington <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 12:00 PM Subject: [SCLANCAS] Y2K Apology > In responce to my Y2K WIN95 Tip? message, I was critized by a self-styled > expert in the field. Since I make a living in the PC market as opposed to a > hobbiest, let me make a few things clear: > 1) for the one or more persons who read my post and got from it that it was > a Y2K fix all, EXCUSE ME. There is no single Y2K fix. Every application > has exposure. > 2) If you own a 486 or prior Intel chip (386, 286 or 8088), your machine > itself is about 99% certain to be a problem. No matter that your software > works, the machine may very well give you bad data. It will NOT properly > process certain applications after 31 Dec 1999. I will not go into the > details but if you use your machine for WordProcessing and the Internet, > sleep well tonight. I have tested over 100 486 and 386 class machines and > have never found one that would pass Y2K. > 3) If you have a Pentium machine, your chances are 99% in your favor. I > have tested over 300 Pentium machines and found no failures. > 4) If you are running a nonIntel chip machine, the initial savings at > purchase may or may not bite you. > 5) You have a risk with every program that you run. If you depend upon the > program to any extent, make sure you are at current release before year end. > It increases the chance that the software publisher has resolved the > problem. If you call in Jan without a problem with the program and you are > not at current release, chances are extremely high that you will be told to > upgrade to current release where the problem has been fixed (even if it has > not). Be current, be safe. > 6) Date not important? Set your system date on 12 31 99 to 12 31 71. 1972 > mimicks 2000 and while it is 28 years off, the system will work fine. > > Next time I come across any information which may minimize the Y2K exposure, > I will keep to myself to insure that I do not confuse those members of the > list who are far more expert than I. > > Bil > > > _______________________________________________________________ > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > >