| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Mr L F Braun wrote:
> > And, of course, everyone says that Y2K was overblown, that it was
> > nothing, et cetera, et cetera, but we'll never know--because so much
> > work and time were put into preventing trouble. And you know what?
> > Trouble was almost completely prevented. I'd call that a massive
> > success in spite of procrastination, not a "non-story." But that
> > would be dealing in counterfactuals.
>
> While Y2K deserved much of the concern raised, it really was overblown.
> I don't remember how many times I had to re-explain exactly what the Y2K
> exposure of our product was, and it was a minor problem in that the next
> time the machine booted after December 31st 1999 the system would detect
> a problem with the clock, and demand the user re-set the clock. Once
> done, the system won't have a problem again until January 1, 2100.
> Incidentally many machines based on the IBM AT architechture have this
> exact same problem because they use the same real time clock.
>
> I also had to constantly document how the date was used in our system
> (basically only for display and in some log messages).
>
> The time to discover the problem was well spent. The time to continually
> re-document the problem was not.
You were lucky if that was the only problem you had to contend with. I was
involved with the upgrade of a mainframe PIMS application, customised by the
client from an OTS package, which needed major changes regarding data entry,
reports, and lots of other stuff to overcome y2k problems. And they'd already
signed a contract to move to another (Y2K compliant) product in 2001! The
upgrade cost them around 18 months of my time, and many other people, and they
were scrapping it less than 2 years later!
Anyway, I agree continnually re-documenting the problem(s) was a major pain in
the [insert lower body part], and a huge waste of time.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) While Y2K deserved much of the concern raised, it really was overblown. I don't remember how many times I had to re-explain exactly what the Y2K exposure of our product was, and it was a minor problem in that the next time the machine booted (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
