Why could they not just build a new main frame?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Okay maybe this is a very stupid question but here goes. Why can they not build new main frames and insert them? I know there is alot of information that would have to reintered but would that not be better than letting everything crash? Maybe only use it at the last moment? And then download information from the other in a safe mode of some kind where it would not be attached to any computer that it could cause to crash. Make it viable to keep things up and running and use it for the time being. Go back to the other and pick information off of it. Why could this not be done??...........Willie
-- William Lyle (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 27, 1998
Hardware like that has to be back-ordered - 10 - 18 months, sometimes longer. Set-up and transfer of information takes 6 - 9 months. No time. It's not a stupid question.
-- zerad (email@example.com), May 27, 1998.
Plus you would have to re-write all of the software that runs the programs and that could take many years. If companies had started earlier, your suggestion of replacement would have been the best alternative in my opinion.
-- Rebecca Kutcher (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 28, 1998.
The two big problems are software (alrady mentioned) and data. Even if your software is fixed, you have to have check the data to make sure that it's okay as well.
Often, the hardware has little or nothing to do with the Y2K problem. Not always, but often.
-- Paul Neuhardt (email@example.com), May 28, 1998.
Previous posts explained why this isn't just a hardware problem. But what's the reason we're in the position we're in now?
The biggest stumbling block to getting an early jump on the Y2K problem has been management reluctance to spend money in order to fix a problem that hasn't occurred and which won't add to the bottom line.
There have been a few brave souls in the IT industry that have been yelling about Y2K from the rooftops for years. Most were either ignored or fired.
The real reason we're in this mess is that the corporate model has taken over our daily lives and left us with a short term view of everything (5-year plans seem to be the longest, most go quarter to quarter). So, here we are...
-- Ted Markow (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 29, 1998.
There is a new super computer being built in Albuquerque N.M. It is the Intel Teraflops-30 Super Computer. It along with Lucent Technology will have the capacity to control and monitor the world, its resources and people. Thats part of the reason that I believe the powers of this world dont want the the y2k problem fixed.
-- Greg Wiatt (email@example.com), May 30, 1998.
The Y2K problem is not limited to the main-frame or even to hardware; it involves many layers of software, billions of database records, and all the convoluted business rules imbedded in business applications. Solving the Y2K problems in any organization is like peeling onions. Even if you find and fix all your own Y2K problems, and you are able to prevent regression from resurfacing them, how do you guarantee all those other organizations you deal with are compliant and prevent them from introducing their Y2K problems into your data stream? It isn't "Rocket-Surgery" but there are so many aspects to cover, so little time, and too few people who understand the problem. To make matters worse, downsizing has become such a fashionable technique for showing short-term productivity gains on paper to share-holders, that the expertise and knowledge of the business rules is lacking. Much of the Y2K conversion effort is out-sourced to independent contractors who have little or no stake in the business outcome.
-- Robert Sparkes (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 02, 1998.