Read this: "If you plan to stay up on New Years Eve 1999 in the hope that youll witness massive chaos at 12:01, dont waste your time. Just 8 percent of system failures will occur during the actual rollover; the remaining 92 percent will be spread out over 1999, 2000 and 2001, says Lou Marcoccio, year 2000 research director at GartnerGroup. . . . "

Am I losing it, or does this sound like good news rather than bad? OK I don't know much about computers but -- it seems to me that as long as failures are spaced widely enough, things won't be as bad as they would be if the systems were to crash all at the same time.

Is that faulty thinking on my part? Feel free to blast me if it is. I guess I'm just desperate for good news after reading doom & gloom since....ugh... April.

-- Ben Dair (wontfindme@aol.com), December 30, 1998

Answers

8% is a big failure rate! If 50% of all systems are effected in someway by the "00" or "99" bug, then according to this guy 4% are going down 1/1/1999 ? I hope the failure rate isn't that high.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), December 30, 1998.

# # # 19981230

Ben, Bill:

Nothing like only getting what you want to get--and out of context too!--from a source, guys! Arrggghhhh! ...

Half-baked sh!t like this p!sses me off!! ...

"... the remaining 92 percent will be spread out over 1999, 2000 and 2001, says Lou Marcoccio, year 2000 research director at GartnerGroup."

Read the whole story at:

"By Katherine Hobson ABCNEWS.com from TheStreet.com If you plan to stay up on New Years Eve 1999 in the hope that youll witness massive chaos at 12:01, dont waste your time. Just 8 percent of system failures will occur during the actual rollover; the remaining 92 percent will be spread out over 1999, 2000 and 2001, says Lou Marcoccio, year 2000 research director at GartnerGroup.

With that in mind, here are a few dates to look out for: ..."

Check your premises thoroughly!!

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), December 30, 1998.

# # # 19981230

Ben:

And to top it off ... You're a lousy Troll, to boot!

Don't waste Ed's bandwidth with disinformation!

# # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), December 30, 1998.

The 8% estimate is the estimate of one consulting group on the failure rate of mainframe applications. It does not address desktop applications, network crashes, or embedded systems.

My understanding is the the overwealming number of embedded system failures will be on 1/1/2000. That is when the electical system will die. And thus many mainframes will be deprived of juice. Also, if the telecommunications (phone) network collapses, the ability of mainframe systems to exchange information is compromised. These failures would lead to banking and financial collapses. It does not matter if the mainframe accounting systems work if there is a financial collapse. So I would take this estimate as assuming fully functioning electricity, phones, and financial systems. Like much of y2k projections, you need to understand their assumptions.

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), December 30, 1998.

And that 8% failure rate is from Gartner. In the last 6 months they have become the most Pollyanna of any independant group, not even apparently looking at their own data when they release their spun PR. Anyone who still gives their PR credence hasn't been following y2k for very long.

Go figure out who they work for. Then comment on panic.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), December 30, 1998.

"And to top it off ... You're a lousy Troll, to boot! Don't waste Ed's bandwidth with disinformation! "

Gee, Thanks... Such gentle responses make it SO much easier for non-technical people to ask questions.

For those who managed to answer without being insulting -- Keep up the civilized behavior, we'll need it in the days ahead.

-- Ben Dair (cantbefound@aol.com), December 30, 1998.

> And to top it off ... You're a lousy Troll, to boot! > Don't waste Ed's bandwidth with disinformation!

Why be insulting? Part of intelligence is to know when you don't know. He asked us a question!

-- D B Spence (dbspence@usa.net), December 30, 1998.

"Don't waste Ed's bandwidth with disinformation!"

The pot calling the kettle black.

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 30, 1998.

# # # 19981230

Ben and D. B.:

Suffering Trolls "planting" incomplete--ergo, disinformation--in any fora should not be tolerated. It screws around with bandwidth and lives of busy folks trying to get something out of the forum.

Maybe you have more time to waste on this kind of tripe?!

The pending spin into 1999-01-01 will be generating volumes of legitimate traffic without the excess baggage of Trollitis.

My $0.02 ...

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), December 30, 1998.

I read that same article about 8% also. Why are you giving him such a hard time. He was asking for verification. He couldn't type the whole thing could he???? Well, on second thought, some people do. He had the gest of it right. Give the guy a break....Geez!!!

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), December 30, 1998.

Bob?

What the hell you talkin' about?

The man asked a question, what's wrong with that?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), December 31, 1998.