If only 8% of Y2K failures will occur on 01-01-00, why is this date such a big deal?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have read that only 8% of Y2K failures will occur on January 1, 2000. If that is true, what's the deal with all of the hype surrounding January 1, 2000? Why is that such an important date?

-- Joe Barnes (justwondering@curious.com), March 01, 1999


If you want to stake your life on an 8% number, that is your business. If not, you have got a lot of catching up to do and VERY little time to do it!

-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 01, 1999.

I've read nothing is going to happen. Everything will be just fine.

Read this: For sale - 1 bridge linking Manhattan and Brooklyn!


-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 01, 1999.

Think of bringing down a bull moose with a .22 (no lucky head shot ) . First bullet, moose jumps, runs a little ways and stops. Then another and another .22 hits him. EACH one takes it's toll and the bullets come faster and faster as more non compliant computers corrupt those that were fixed, till , like the moose, it collapases under it's own vulnerability to stop the loss of it's " life blood " (read repair/remediation) . 1/1/00 is not the first bullet, but it up's the ante. Eagle

-- Harold Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), March 01, 1999.

PS - I'm not trying to be hard on you. Read some of the information here and make up your own mind. But you should do so quickly. We really don't have much time. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 01, 1999.


Let me try this from a different angle. The date itself is little more that a symbol. It's an icon representing a much larger problem. Lot's of things may happen on any one day then again not.

The general view here is that problems are going to be spread out over period of time. How long varies with the teller of the tale. I haven't seen anyone who thinks that at the stroke of midnight on 12.31.99 every one will run screaming down the street tearing their clothes off and biting at their limbs.(Except maybe Time Square where I'm told that is sort of expected).

Seroiusly, THE date will carry a lot of technical problems that are related to that particular day, but there are others dates that wiill have problems too. Some of the problems may not show up until a year later.

I guess I'm saying the overal impact will not necessarily felt on any one day. Although if there was *one* day that would certainly be it.

If yor read the older threads here you will find a wealth of information about different dates and the potentiol problems associtated with.each.

-- Greybear, who prefers to have it spread out. Sure would hate to get it all at one time.

- Got Shovels?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 01, 1999.

I wonder where the 8% figure came from (I saw it a few weeks ago on a TV news program). Ed Yourdon has mentioned a company whose internal analysis revealed that only 3% of their problems would show up prior to 1-1-2000. That suggests to me that their 1-1-2000 figure would be higher than 8%. I think that company is in the financial sector, but not sure.

-- Bill Byars (billbyars@softwaresmith.com), March 01, 1999.

I think the 3% figure was just for January, 1999 errors.


-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 01, 1999.

8% sounds to me like a very misleading average -- you know, like the guy who drowned in water where the average depth was only 2"...

And, lets think quality not just quantity. 1/1/2000 is when the embedded systems Y2K problems start kicking in -- you know, the things that could not care less about fiscal years but do control things like water filtration, sewage disposal, nuclear plant operations and the like. Might turn out to be a powerful 8%!!!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 01, 1999.

All I ask is where did they get the evidence for the 8% number. Show me the proof, the stats, the data, bottom line they can't do it. There are more problems with the 00 roll than just the date itself. For example there are systems that advance the fiscal year by "1" so that you go from 98 to 99 to 100 big problem! Let me say this just one more time there is no such thing as a y2k expert because y2k has never happened before. There are only systems experts and super geeks and these are the people I trust. Tman

Boy I am starting to sound like Flint-Got Proof

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), March 02, 1999.

The 8% is from the Garter Group right? Pray tell how in Holy H--l,did they manage to "accurately" estimate over a year in advance how well companies world-wide would do in fixing code? Maybe they have a Sufi prophet or two in their employ. And BTW doesn`t this number have relevence,by their own admission,to only a portion of computer platfoms? P.S. Really serious y2k in Nation

-- bud (bud@computers edge.com), March 02, 1999.


You asked...

"...what's the deal with all the hype surrounding January 1, 2000? Why is that such an inportant date?"

Two words:


Most embedded system failures will take place in December 1999 and January 2000. This article is a good, general one on the embedded system problem...

"Problems lurk in more than just computers"


...and see this one on how embedded systems could affect Chicago's water supply...

http://chicagotribune.com/version1/article/0,1575,SAV- 9901010066,00.html

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

Joe, you said:

"I have read that only 8% of Y2K failures will occur on January 1, 2000. If that is true, what's the deal with all of the hype surrounding January 1, 2000? "

1. 1/1/200 is the "trigger" date for Y2K failures. The whole problem is that some systems will (or would have if not fixed) have problems processing dates on or after this date. The 8% estimate (and it is only an estimate) comes from two factors. One, most software systems have at least some forward looking logic in them, meaning that they will have already reached thier failure point before 1/1/2000. Second, 1/1/2000 is a Saturday and there will simply be fewer systems performing their full suite of functions on that day.

2. Misinformation. Despite all the explainations available in the world today, many people still don't understand that the problem is systems' inability to process dates after 1/1/2000 and not that these systems have some pre-designed disposition to suddenly go brain-dead as the forth digit of the year rolls over. It's scary how many people still think that computer systems will simply will stop working when midnight 1/1/2000 rolls around.

3. [Okay folks, get the flame guns ready.] Millenialist hype. Many are all jazzed up over the rollover from 1999 to 2000 as if there is some extra meaning attached to it. "A New Millenium," "Entry Into The 21st Century" blah, blah, blah. The funny thing is, 2000 is neither the first year of the next millenium nor is it even the first year of the 21st Century. 2001 is. Why do you think Arthur C. Clarke picked that year for his movie/book title?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), March 02, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ