Start with a 5 year old VCR in working order. Now, without cheating and looking at the front panel, figure out how to test the clock circuit to see if it is Y2K compliant. Since this VCR was made before 1995, it won't be. Now, locate a replacement chip for this VCR that is Y2K compliant and compatible with the VCR. Order the chip and await delivery. Install the chip and test again for Y2K compliance. If you burn the chip up, start over.

Then report back to us on how easy this exercise was.

-- a (a@a.a), April 14, 1999

Answers

Can't do this til I get home but a few questions:

(1) Why can't I use the front panel to change the date? Isn't that what it was intended for?

(2) Why do you assume that anything made before 1995 is non-compliant?

(3) If I can set the date forward and tape, playback, and program it to record future shows with no problems, why do I need a compliant chip?

(4) What do you expect this exercise to show?

RMS

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 14, 1999.

RMS:

(1) Why can't I use the front panel to change the date? Isn't that what it was intended for? This is to simulate real world conditions where the embedded chip may not have a man-machine interface.

(2) Why do you assume that anything made before 1995 is non-compliant? I challenge you to find a pre-1995 chip or VCR that uses a 4 digit year. (separate challenge-not saying they don't exist, just rare)

(3) If I can set the date forward and tape, playback, and program it to record future shows with no problems, why do I need a compliant chip? Do you mean set it backward to 1972? No, for this challenge, it must be compatible with 00, or 2000. Must recognize 00/2000 as a leap year, etc, etc.

(4) What do you expect this exercise to show? What this will show is that A) No one on this forum will be able to do it. Just like in the real world, they will lack the wherewithal, the diligence, the motivation, test equipment and the resources (compatible chips no longer made for this early model). B) The complexity and difficulty of the embed problem is very real. Although a Y2K complaint VCR is itself inconsequential to "TWAWKI", it exemplifies the nature of the problem that now confronts the custodians of the world's 50 billion chips.

-- a (a@a.a), April 14, 1999.

Last week I found an old 386sl laptop in a desk drawer. Thing was made back about 92/93. Ran the whole suite of Y2K tests on it. Passed every one of them.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.

(1) This is to simulate real world conditions where the embedded chip may not have a man-machine interface.

I don't think that is the real world. Give me an example of an embedded chip with a clock that has no external interface with which to set it.

(2) I challenge you to find a pre-1995 chip or VCR that uses a 4 digit year. (separate challenge-not saying they don't exist, just rare)

(3) Do you mean set it backward to 1972? No, for this challenge, it must be compatible with 00, or 2000. Must recognize 00/2000 as a leap year, etc, etc.

OK. So what you are saying is that functionality is meaningless. Adherence to the BSI definition for compliance is all that matters. Like I said before, as long as it works, what difference does it make. It is a VCR, not a chronograph. If it tapes the shows I want and plays them back, what else do I need?

A) No one on this forum will be able to do it. Just like in the real world, they will lack the wherewithal, the diligence, the motivation, test equipment and the resources (compatible chips no longer made for this early model).

Given your conditions, and the skills of most of those here, that is most likely true. But this is not like in the real world. Engineers doing Y2K testing DO have the skills, tools, and motivation necessary. They also have the manufacturers resources and testing results to use. In your example, the VCR is not a programmable device (in the sense that you can change the software/firmware inside). Therefore, its chips are identical to those in every other VCR of the same model and brand and has probably already been tested by the manufacturer who was able to do exactly what you propose.

B) The complexity and difficulty of the embed problem is very real. Although a Y2K complaint VCR is itself inconsequential to "TWAWKI", it exemplifies the nature of the problem that now confronts the custodians of the world's 50 billion chips.

"Compliance" is becoming less important than "compatibility". Of those 50 billion chips, how many are used in applications that care about the absolute date or whether it is leap year or not? Probably a very small percentage but still a sizeable number. Of those products and applications utilizing them in a non-compliant way, how many of the original manufacturers are aware of it? I would say nearly 100%. If your assumption is that a large industrial plant must test every single chip and product themselves in order to ensure compliance, you have a very unreal expectation which no company anywhere in the world will come close to meeting.

RMS

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 14, 1999.

RMS: Thanks for failing the challenge and proving my point. You said:

If your assumption is that a large industrial plant must test every single chip and product themselves in order to ensure compliance, you have a very unreal expectation which no company anywhere in the world will come close to meeting.

That is one of the reasons why we can expect chaos come 2000.

Paul: I said VCR. You know, like the one on top of your TV that you rent movies for. Not your PC, idiot. But thanks for taking the challenge.

-- a (a@a.a), April 14, 1999.

Why should we expect chaos? If I had 300 identical VCR's in my plant (to continue to use your simple analogy) and Mitsubishi told me that they were year 2000 compliant, are you saying that I must disassemble each one and pull the chips off the board and test them myself? I can see testing one or two or even more to verify what the manufacturer told me but there is no reason to go through your scenario for each device.

RMS

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 14, 1999.

Unfortunately RMS that doesn't seem to be the case. Identical chips-- same part number,etc--have been found to have varying compliance. "Type testing" is generally recognized to be invalid.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), April 14, 1999.

RMS: The more you run your mouth, the more of your foot that falls in. As it is, you're about up to your knee.

Can you really not get the gist of what I'm saying? Do I have to spell it out for you? Do you not understand that there is a tremendous amount of chips that will fail in systems after 2000? Do you not understnad the problem of destroying equipment while testing? Do you fail to realize the supply and demand problem that is associated with every company in the world requesting new chips simultaneously? Do you think that oil refineries and chemical plants can explode if their computers malfunction? Do you have a pen up your nose?

-- a (a@a.a), April 14, 1999.

Shimrod:

I would be interested in your source that identical chips have had different compliance.

Aaaah:

Apparently you don't like to have your statements questioned. My mistake.

Can you really not get the gist of what I'm saying? Do I have to spell it out for you?

I guess you do because your point seems to change from post to post.

Do you not understand that there is a tremendous amount of chips that will fail in systems after 2000?

What exactly do you mean by 'fail"? Do you mean that the device or system they are in will cease all functions immediately? If so, do you have any proof of this? Or do you mean that the device or system may not know whether it is 1900 or 2000? If the system continues to operate normally except for some 'cosmetic errors' but with no degradation of performance or safety, does this constitute a 'failure'?

Do you not understnad the problem of destroying equipment while testing?

No. My company sells a broad range of products and we have over 3500 entries in our Y2K Product database and we have not destroyed anything by testing.

Do you fail to realize the supply and demand problem that is associated with every company in the world requesting new chips simultaneously?

If that happened, that would be a problem. But it has not and will not happen because not all of those chips/devices/systems need to be replaced. Like I said before, 100% Year 2000 Compliance is not a necessary condition for a system or company to remian fully functional.

Do you think that oil refineries and chemical plants can explode if their computers malfunction?

Possible but not likely. If you look at most industrial fires, explosions, etc., they are generally the result of mechanical failures or human errors or a combination of both (e.g. TMI and Bhopal). And again, what do you mean by "malfunction"? If the operator console shows the date as 1900, that would be a malfunction but that will not cause the plant to blow up.

Do you have a pen up your nose?

No, do you have your finger up yours? Or elsewhere?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 14, 1999.

'a':

I agree embedded 'failures' (of all sizes, mostly minor) will cause lots of headaches. But your implication that all headaches are instantly fatal is either misinformed or (more likely) just a side- effect of your usual belligerance.

I must agree with RMS that if my VCR continues to do everything it's supposed to do, any theoretical lack of compliance is irrelevant. And if your life depended on it, would you use a defibrillator whose only failure lies in printing out the wrong date (if you haven't run out of paper, of course)? Or would you rather die than admit that some 'failures' can be lived with?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 14, 1999.

RMS: It's not that I don't like your questions; its that I think you are missing my point, or either you're taunting me.

This was a simple challenge. The task was to locate, test, acquire a replacement part, install, and test again, a chip in your VCR. My point is that, as much of a joke that has been made of VCRs, coffee makers, etc, if YOU, as an embed professional, HAD to make this VCR function in a post-2000 world, you couldn't do it!

Now, open your blinders a bit and extrapolate this situation to the real world, where we're not talking about one dusty VCR that may mis-record Judge Judy. We are talking about potential crisises in every sector of almost every economy of the world.

Can I prove it? No. Can you disprove it? Well...you missed an opportunity with this challenge!

Flint: your responses are starting to sound like a broken record of Koskinen's greatest hits. See above.

-- a (a@a.a), April 14, 1999.

RMS,

Your point on identical boxes is not valid. The same box can function quite differently simply by having a different ROM. I have personal experience developing a black box terminal controller. Over time, the resulting input and output data streams changed considerably because of things like data compression being added to a new REV of the firmware. We had at least 15 different REVs over the life span of the box. If you swapped boxes, one with data compression and the other without, the result would be garbage out of both. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.

Sysman

Is this or is it not the problem that will likely occur with the FAA trying to put their fix into all the regional air traffic control centers after testing it in the lab in Virginia, placing the fix and testing it with the one flight at Denver and then declaring all is OK? Seems to me, if the "boxes" fit one center that doesn't mean they will fit all the centers because each center has been fixed over the years to handle problems specific to that center. So how are they going to do all the center- specific replacement and testing and all the airport replacement and testing in 8 1/2 mos. or so? Doesn't seem possible to me. Maybe I am just a DGI when it comes to government spin. Maybe that is why I am so dumb as to be prepared.

Sysman - I understood your explanation - thank you. That is why the question is directed at you. Thanks for speaking English for us non- tech types.

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), April 14, 1999.

Valkyrie:

My reading of this test is that is shows that *some* of the systems work properly in *Denver*. I certainly didn't read this story as saying that all systems work properly everywhere.

There are surely some systems tested in Denver which really are common (identical) in all locations, and surely some which are unique to Denver. So this test is at best only partially applicable to other airports (and possibly only partially applicable to other types of airplanes, though these are outside the FAA jurisdiction).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 14, 1999.

Dear a (a@a.a),

Are you. . .dIETER?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 14, 1999.

Hi Valkyrie. I really don't know much about the FAA beyond what I read at places like this. But there is a bunch of information if you follow some of the links. I can tell you that DOT Inspector General is concerned because of "changes made by local technicians" when it comes to implementing repairs. The FAA also has a history of being late with just about everything. One of the recent threads has some other opinions about the FAA, although this particular item does not seem to be a Y2K fix... <:)=

FAA Has Big Problems With Air Traffic Control System

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.

My point is that, as much of a joke that has been made of VCRs, coffee makers, etc, if YOU, as an embed professional, HAD to make this VCR function in a post-2000 world, you couldn't do it!

I have made the test and my VCR (RCA VR603AHF, 1994) works just fine! I taped a show, and played it back. I set it to record a show in "2000" while still in "1999" and it did. It did everything I expected a VCR to do. It even showed the date as 2000! What do I win?

Now, open your blinders a bit... We are talking about potential crisises in every sector of almost every economy of the world.

Can I prove it? No. Can you disprove it? Well...you missed an opportunity with this challenge!

Open my blinders? Look at what you wrote: potential crisises There are 'potential' crises everywhere, independent of Y2K and many much more likely. You talk about all these potential failures as if the people who made these devices are totally clueless about Y2K and haven't done anything. Like I said, most electronic devices don't even need to be tested by the end user -- unless its programming can be customized or modified after it leaves the factory, the manufacturer can tell you everything you need to know about it. Nothing, and certainly not your silly little test, can ever conclusively prove that there won't be failures -- you cannot prove a negative. In fact, I never said there would be "no" problems, I am sure there will be. But 'problems' is a very vague and far ranging term. I do not see how a non-compliant chip in a control valve will shut down a large industrial plant and nothing in any of these threads has provided one ounce of evidence to support that contention. A lot of suppositions and possibilities, but nothing based on any reasonable facts.

To Sysman:

Reread what I wrote. The statement was that identical CHIPS exhibited different Y2K compliance results and I asked for a source. Two boxes with different ROM versions are not identical. If you look at most manufacturers sites, they list various software and/hardware revision levels for products where that has relevance to their Y2K compatibility.

RMS

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 15, 1999.

RMS: You moron, what did I ask you to do? I know it was a long time ago, but the question is still at the top of this thread if you remember how to use your scroll bar:

Start with a 5 year old VCR in working order. Now, without cheating and looking at the front panel, figure out how to test the clock circuit to see if it is Y2K compliant...

Now go run and play with Norm. I'm tired of proofreading your assinine comments.

-- a (a@a.a), April 15, 1999.

http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/y2k/closer.htm

[snip]

Doing the Math on the Y2K Embedded Systems Problem:

10- to 25-billion embedded systems in existence

An estimated 0.2 to 1 percent are not Y2K compliant

20- to 250-million embedded system failures, due to Y2K, could occur

Small failures could have major impacts

Y2K Myths

Only computers are affected

We don't need to test software and devices if the vendor says it's compliant

If we test the components individually, we don't need to test the system

We don't need to contact vendors, we can test software and equipment ourselves by simply changing the date

We have until January 31, 1999 to complete Y2K work

It will all be over on January 1, 2000

If we check specific equipment in one location, we don't need to check similar equipment in other locations

All new construction projects and equipment will be Y2K compliant

The vendor's service agreement covers Y2K compliance

The vendors have liability should a system fail

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 15, 1999.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I Y2K-proofed by VCR two years ago by setting the clock back 8 years. (It knows dates only, not day of week, so calendars repeat every 4 years, and the year is there only so it knows if there is a Feb 29). If I forget about it from now on, it'll have a Y2008 problem.

As for the real world: the allegation is that there are many embedded systems that have (a) no means to set the clock, but which (b) contain a realtime clock which (c) will disrupt normal operation when it wraps and by implication, (d) in a permanent fashion.

This seems unlikely. From (a) one can only assume that a realtime clock is used as an interval timer (since otherwise it wouldn't work if exported to a different timezone). However, if this is the case then why is the realtime clock battery-backed? And if not, it'll re- set to a base date every time the device is power-cycled. In the unlikely event this it is battery-backed, (d) means that the interval- timing function is buggy in a way that allows it to calculate the difference between dates in the 1900s, but not in the 2000s. This requires either an RTC with a defect in silicon (again rare), or an unlikely programming fault (unlikely because the canonical embedded RTC interval timing problem is not looking at the century bit at all, and consequently evaluating one interval across that midnight as nearly 100 years but working AOK once both dates in the interval have 00 as the year).

Most embedded system problems are going to be either (a) glitches at or about the exact moment when the embedded clock wraps (which are serious only if the consequences are serious), or (b) failures in systems which actually use the realtime clock for realtime calendar- sensitive functions, like security systems and traffic lights. All embedded systems of type (b) *will* have the ability to set the clock, and are therefore (in principle) testable. Most of the chaos will be caused by such systems that aren't tested.

In short: plenty of problems ahead, but the view that all embedded systems are going to turn into pumpkins at midnight is very wide of the mark. How much chaos will actually arise is as hard to predict as just about anything else about Y2K. The two truisms are (1) every Y2K bug caught now is one less problem for the future, and (2) being prepared for something worse than you expect is a good idea.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), April 15, 1999.

Hi RMS,

I'm trying not to be dense, but I have a question for you regarding this statement you made.

"I set it to record a show in "2000" while still in "1999" and it did."

What show was it? Were there new stars in it that we haven't heard about yet? Is it a brand new tv series or is it a new season show, say for the show "Friends"? If so, would you please share the plot with us. Also, where can I buy a VCR like yours so I don't have to wait till next year to see it? I'd like to avoid as many re-runs as possible this summer, so I wait anxiously to hear your response.

"It did everything I expected a VCR to do. It even showed the date as 2000! What do I win?"

Oh, you win lots of money if this is true....scientists have been researching and working on time travel for a long time now with poor results, and will pay you big bucks for this invention!

-- Investor in Rare Discoveries (uspatentoffice@dc.com), April 15, 1999.

That is the response I expected from you, aaaaahhh! If you had the ability to comprehend, you would see that I already posted that neither I nor most other on this board could perform your exercise as written. I also pointed out that your exercise was pointless as the designer of the VCR, the control valve, and any other system with an embedded chip that has critical clock functions also designed a way to set the clock and thus test it. Later in the thread, you said that I could not make a pre-1995 VCR work in 2000 if I had to but you were wrong. All you have done is throw up a strawman and now you can go tell all your friends "Look, RMS couldn't do the test, therefore he admits that I am right and he is wrong!" I'll give you an easier test: set YOUR VCR clock ahead to 11:58 pm, 12/31/99 and start a tape. If your VCR does not halt and spit out flames at the stroke of midnight, then that "proves" that embedded chips are not a problem, right? I actually thought you might have some semblance of intelligence, but alas, your last post has shown the real you.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 15, 1999.

Investor in Rare Discoveries wrote:

I'm trying not to be dense,

I'm sure you aren't -- it obviously comes naturally!

but I have a question for you regarding this statement you made.

"I set it to record a show in "2000" while still in "1999" and it did."

What show was it? Were there new stars in it that we haven't heard about yet? Is it a brand new tv series or is it a new season show, say for the show "Friends"? If so, would you please share the plot with us. Also, where can I buy a VCR like yours so I don't have to wait till next year to see it? I'd like to avoid as many re-runs as possible this summer, so I wait anxiously to hear your response.

Note the quotation marks around the "2000". Usually, when one sees a word quoted that otherwise should not be, that is an indication that there is some other meaning than the obvious. Therefore, it is important to reread the passage and previous ones to understand what the alternate meaning might be. I'm sure this is taxing you but stay with me. Had you done this, you would have found where I said I simply set my VCR clock ahead so that the VCR thought it was 11:59pm 12/31/99. Therefore, if I set it to record a program anytime in the future, the VCR will think that it is 2000. See how simple that is?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 15, 1999.

Kevin:

While I won't try to argue the numbers, your'snips' do require some additional information:

An estimated 0.2 to 1 percent are not Y2K compliant

20- to 250-million embedded system failures, due to Y2K, could occur

Small failures could have major impacts

According to this, any thing that is non-compliant will fail. What defintion of "compliance" are they using? What do they mean by "failure". I have said it over and over that non-compliance based on the BSI definition does not imply failure. I have a 10 year old Braun coffee maker and I would bet a month's pay that, if someone checked the clock chip, they would find that it is non-compliant. But, the coffee maker doesn't care about years or months or days for that matter so it doesn't matter. I will enjoy a nice cup of java on 1/1/00 while reading the newspaper.

We don't need to test software and devices if the vendor says it's compliant

This is simply one opinion and many hold the opposite opinion. The reality is that we put our lifes in the hands of vendors everyday based on nothing but trust of what they said. You probably have an airbag in your car and that makes you feel safer. But your specific airbag has never been tested or fully deployed. You might buy a Volvo because of their great crash-test results. But the Volvo you drive on the highway has never been on a test sled or slammed into a wall.

If you really do "mix music", then you work with a great deal of complex electrical equipment everyday. Do you worry about getting an electrical shock with all of that current flowing around you? Probably not because all of it has a UL or CSA or some other tag on it. But neither UL nor CSA nor the manufacturer of the equipment tested that specific piece of hardware. Yet we trust it.

Many of the extremists on the pessimistic side of Y2K argue that you can never trust the vendor and you must get independent verification of everything they say. If you ascribe to that, then you should live in a cave and grow your own food because almost everything you do everyday is in someway based on trust that someone did something right from pouring milk on your cereal (how do you know they really homogenized it) to filling you gas tank (can you prove that it is 93 octane) to riding an elevator (how do I know this will hold 20 people) etc. etc.

RMS

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 15, 1999.

Oops!

I just realized I cut out the title Y2K Myths that was above the following in the previous post:

We don't need to test software and devices if the vendor says it's compliant

So when I say "many hold the opposite opinion" I meant many hold the opinion that the above is NOT a myth.

RMS

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 15, 1999.

RMS,

"I'm sure you aren't -- it obviously comes naturally!"

Now now....don't be so testy, ever heard of TIC?

"where I said I simply set my VCR clock ahead so that the VCR thought it was 11:59pm 12/31/99. Therefore, if I set it to record a program anytime in the future, the VCR will think that it is 2000. See how simple that is? "

Why didn't you say that to begin with? I'm so literal that it really appears that you were saying you recorded a show in the year 2000.

Next question....so the VCR will correctly record shows on the right date and time in 2000 and beyond?

Btw, get a sense of humor while they last. You're not going to get outta this alive.(g)

-- Investor in Rare Discoveries (uspatentoffice@dc.com), April 15, 1999.

Now now....don't be so testy, ever heard of TIC?

Sorry, but I am naturally testy before my second cup of coffee, especially after being called a moron! And, no, "TIC" is a new one on me.

Why didn't you say that to begin with?

Thought it was obvious -- my bad!

Next question....so the VCR will correctly record shows on the right date and time in 2000 and beyond?

Absolutely!

Btw, get a sense of humor while they last. You're not going to get outta this alive.(g)

Thanks, I'll take it under advisement!

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 15, 1999.

RMS: You really are a glutton for punishment aren't you? You said:

If you had the ability to comprehend, you would see that I already posted that neither I nor most other on this board could perform your exercise as written.

Read what you typed, you dumb bastard, you admit that you have failed the challenge! This was not an exercise to have you check your VCR for Y2K compliance, are you REALLY that DENSE???? Do you think that after a year on this forum I would post a thread that moronic?

The challenge was to make one non-compliant VCR compliant. I bet that no one here could do it. My bet stands.

You sir, are are a fool.

-- a (a@a.a), April 15, 1999.

'a':

You're quite right, we can't make a noncompliant VCR compliant. And there are a lot of devices analogous to the VCR out there that we can't make compliant. But don't imply that by extrapolation, the situation will lead to chaos, since this isn't justified.

The way such devices are handled is pretty straightforward:

1) If it still does everything it's supposed to do properly, the noncompliance is irrelevant. Ignore it.

2) If it does *most* of what it's supposed to do properly, but there's something functional going wrong, assess the importance of that missing functionality. If it's critical, replace the entire device. If it's not critical but still helpful, decide if the cost of replacement is worth the convenience. If so replace, otherwise live with it. And go on to the next item.

So you're right that there's a lot of noncompliance out there to be dealt with. And RMS is right that we can deal with it one way or another in most cases. And we can identify the cases where we can't, and start making plans now. The number and impact of economically critical total losses will be manageable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 15, 1999.

Flint: My intent here was not to say every chip needs fixing. My intent was to show how hard it could be to test and repair ONE chip, if it indeed had to be fixed. I was very clear about this in my first response to RMS:

(4) What do you expect this exercise to show? What this will show is that A) No one on this forum will be able to do it. Just like in the real world, they will lack the wherewithal, the diligence, the motivation, test equipment and the resources (compatible chips no longer made for this early model). B) The complexity and difficulty of the embed problem is very real. Although a Y2K complaint VCR is itself inconsequential to "TWAWKI", it exemplifies the nature of the problem that now confronts the custodians of the world's 50 billion chips.

You said:

The number and impact of economically critical total losses [due to embed failures] will be manageable.

I don't think this is a given. Its unpredictable. It will be a new behavior, as the "system" has never been stressed this way before. It may become chaotic, and collapse. I don't know. No one does.

Runway Cat expressed this concept elegantly on another thread today:

In the Middle Ages, the bubonic plague was 'pervasive'. But it was also 'hidden', in the sense that the underlying cause (germ theory of disease) could not be understood or fixed within the real-time analytic resources of the affected communities.

-- a (a@a.a), April 15, 1999.

How many pessimists fixed their VCRs?

a, you must have your finger up your butt.

-- Curious (wanted@to.know), April 15, 1999.

Dear RMS,

I realize that the "old" Braun doesn't know the year , month .day ect.

But you said on 1/1/00 you would be enjoying a cup of coffee, I would ask if it will be cooked over a campfire , since the " old " Braun requires electricity to operate . Please tell me what makes YOU think we will have power on 1/1/00 .

Thank you :o)

-- Mike (mickle2@aol.com), April 16, 1999.

OK aaahhh! I guess you really are dense. One more time: your test cannot be accomplished by me nor by most of the others on this board. Happy? But, your that fact means absolutely nothing because it is not a real test of anything. Any system that has an internal clock and that internal clock is critical to operation has some exsternal means for setting and testing it for Y2K compliance. There is no reason to try to access the chip directly to test it, the engineer saw do it that you didn't need to do that. You seem to think that is not the case so I challenge YOU again -- give me one example of a device that requires you to test it and remediate it as you described above. Not a theoretical device, something real. If you can't do it, then you have failed and thus proven that not such device exists. That is the correct logic to use isn't it: Since neither I nor anyone else on this board can successfully complete your silly test, then the logical conclusion is that nobody in the world can do it and that all embedded chips will result in catastrophic failure.

To Mike: It all depends on what you believe. What makes you think that I will NOT have power?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.