Re: Y2K Comments - off topic

[Paul Strasser <paul -dot- strasser -at- WINDSOR-TECH -dot- COM>]

I just heard that Microsoft was planning on announcing an update to Windows
98 called Windows 2000, but due to a few problems it won't be introduced
until the second quarter of 1901.

Happy Friday PM

Paul Strasser
Windsor Technologies
Louisville CO


-----Original Message-----
From: Comeau, Lisa <ComeauL -at- MOHYF-MX1 -dot- MOHDEV -dot- GOV -dot- ON -dot- CA>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Y2K Comments


>Tracy said:
>
>Obviously a system can only do what it was designed to do...
>In that case, wouldn't faulty "instructions," such as "these two numbers
for
>the year always have a '19' in front of them" be considered a bug?
>
>I humbly reply
>
>From what I was taught in school (yes, I went to school to learn computer
>stuff...) the Y2K issue was not a fault in the programming, it was a lack
of
>foresight. Because the computer industry changes so fast, and new hardware
>is old as soon as it's on the shelf, the programmers of the systems that
>will have the date problem just didn't think anyone would still be using
the
>machines by the year 2000.
>
>Think of it in terms of a sci fi writer who assumed we'd be living on the
>moon by now - they overshot, while mainframe (etc.)creaters and programmers
>undershot.
>
>And just as an interesting point, I seem to remember a computer maven
saying
>(in the early 80s) that (loosely quoted) 'no one will EVER need more than
>640K of memory' - hence the problem with DOS that eventually brought us Win
>95.
>
>Lisa Comeau
>Ontario, Canada
>"I love to dance in the light of the TECHWR-L flames...it makes me feel
>free..."
>-attributed to a crazy techwhirler singed to death on afternoon in May
>
>From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==
>
>
>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=