Question..Gartner Group says Y2k will start.... : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

in July. Why this date?

-- Linda A. (, April 21, 1999


Some programs will begin looking into the year 2000 in July.

-- Daniel Buchner (, April 21, 1999.

I've been wondering something. I understand that future-date issues are the reason that pre-2000 time can be a problem for computers. What I don't understand is how anybody can say (the percentages vary widely) that "most" of the problems are already over. After all, most date-ahead calculations relate to databased finance type issues, do they not? The distribution systems of my electricity, natural gas, and water and about a billion other things are probably not going to have any real problem (except their billing cycles) until Y2K actually arrives. I think.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (, April 21, 1999.

No one can look ahead into the crystal ball and see what will happen. It is the responsibility of each INDIVIDUAL to read, get informed, and make their own decisions based on their own research.

This much I know; the program that I use at work had to be replaced - at the cost of $85,000. And this is for 1 program that only I use. If my company was willing to shell out that much cash to replace just 1 program, the thought of how much they would have to spend company-wide boggled my mind.

Based on my company's ratioanl, I thought it prudent to do a little preparing of my own...

-- Daniel Buchner (, April 21, 1999.

Y2K started no later than 1998 - check with Visa and Mastercard. Most beforehand estimates (no fair changing after the fact) put us from 25% to 33% into the total of Y2K problems that can be expected right now. By September 1st we will be way over 50%. So far, minor stuff and inconvience - no major problem that was not fixed in less than 24 hrs.

-- Paul Davis (, April 21, 1999.

Minor stuff? I think that our two suppliers whose systems crashed when we sent out forecast information into the year 2000 would disagree with you. So would the other suppliers who are being dropped because they don't have plans in place.

-- Daniel Buchner (, April 21, 1999.

Don't pay attention to this Paul Davis guy! He is a DGI idiot. A real waste of time. Why he spends so much time at this forum is a real mystery.

-- Disgusted (, April 21, 1999.

Actually, that's a good question, because the earlier predictions were that it would start in winter '98. (Oops, _19_98. I wrote a non-compliant response. Sorry.)

In fact, Gary North said that the Euro would blow up on January 4th. It didn't.

Several prophets said that the airline reservation system would blow up in February. It didn't.

Ed Yourdon said that April 1st would be a BIG day. It wasn't.

(Of course, to be fair to him, he now states that he wrote that prediction when he was "in a grumpy mood;" I guess we can excuse it on that basis.)

Now Gartner is pushing the "official start" to July, to give these pesky civilization-killin' problems more time to appear. So far, they've stubbornly refused to rear their nasty heads.

(Rather inconsiderate of them, don't you think?)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, April 21, 1999.

Well, Stephen, the doomers would counter that arguement with "the problems are there but they are not big enough to make headlines". I agree nothing big has happened and the date for things to start happening keeps getting pushed back. Amazing isn't it!

BTW, disgusted, Paul is more of a GI than you.

-- Maria (, April 21, 1999.

Well, I'm a GI through and through, 100%, but I will "believe it" when I see it. There have been enough little gliches and test problems that I am convinced there will be problems. I also feel that if computers do not cause a #10, 8, 6, or whatever, that people will cause major problems because of panic and/or fear. I personally am afraid that Russia will complicate matters by declaring war on us. But as I said, I will BELIEVE it when I see it. Until then everything is just someone's opinion.

-- winna (??@??.com), April 21, 1999.

Sounds like you Chris.

-- Maria (, April 21, 1999.


You're absolutely right. But let's put this in perspective:

On the same day that, say, 3-4 systems had Y2K problems, hundreds of systems were hit by computer viruses, requiring cleanup, removal and/or data restoration.

Tens of thousands of other computers -- from small embeddeds up to large mainframes -- suffered everything from power supply failures to data corruption, requiring repair and restoration.

Computers fail all the time now, and Y2K is just one bug of zillions. It has gained fame and notoriety SOLEY because it coincides with the Spooky and Mystical Dawn of the New Millennium, which appeals to the clueless for some reason that I can't grasp.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, April 21, 1999.

What a great website! Thanks,

-- Maria (, April 21, 1999.

Mr. Poole:

"Computers fail all the time now, and Y2K is just one bug of zillions. It has gained fame and notoriety SOLEY [sic] because it coincides with the Spooky and Mystical Dawn of the New Millennium, which appeals to the clueless for some reason that I can't grasp."

I believe this can be filed under "Most moronic statements ever made".

-- regular (zzz@z.z), April 21, 1999.

The $1,500,000,000,000.00 spook, with another $2,000,000,000,000.00 for the ghost busters (lawyers). <:)=

-- Sysman (, April 21, 1999.

I have a question for Mr Poole and Maria and others that hang around here and do their best to convince us that nothing is going to happen...WHY? Why, as in Why do you care if I spend a few bucks preparing for a potential problem? Why do you waste your time hanging around people with which you seem to have nothing in common? What do you gain from this? Do you just enjoy antagonizing others? And I mean this seriously. If there is some good that comes from it, terrific!! I just don't see it.

-- (, April 21, 1999.

I thought the problem was that computers treat the year "00" as being before the year "99"...

-- Kevin (, April 21, 1999.

I give up Kevin. I've rubber-stamped the "Y2K for a good reason" post about 25 times here. Some people just don't GET IT. They find excuse after excuse why the problem is no big deal. I really do hope that it turns out that way, but I haven't seen enough "good news" yet to convince myself. Sure, we still have some time, but the clock continues to tick. I know what my plans are, and about all we can do at this point is hope that others do also. Happy New Year folks. <:)=

-- Sysman (, April 21, 1999.

Sorry sysman I missed the "Y2K for a good reason post". Where is it?

I asked a few months back how the doomers came to their conclusions. The responses (from only a few) centered around where they were when they got it: I was at the grocery store and it hit me, or one day I realized the Y2K problem. All I got were these nice little buzz words: interconnected, systemic, complex; a lot of hand waving and no real explanation of it. Well, if these doomers are so intelligent to understand it then why cant they explain it. Ive asked and all I get is go do the research. Well, again if they want to convert the DGIs to GIs then they need to do a little more than just find out for yourself.

Theres no doubt about the complexity of our technological world and our dependence on computers. Picking up the phone invokes numerous computers, networks, and satellites. Of course, power systems entail not only manufacturing but also distribution of supplies and raw materials, as well as the end product. Got it. I understand the laws of inputs and outputs to any variety of business processes. I understand that if something can go wrong, it will. But to make the leap to a ten-year depression doesnt compute. I'm here trying to find logical reasoning on how you make this leap.

And on a personal level, please continue your preparations. I don't care how you spend your time or your money.

-- Maria (, April 21, 1999.

Ya know, I am going to have to post this as a new thread sometime, so I can just give a link to it. I bet I have written the same thing (in different words) about 50 times now. I really, truly don't care if anyone, anywhere prepares in a calm, rational manner for any disaster they feel is likely.

NOW, look at the keywords in that sentence. Calm, rational - those are pretty important. Many of the threads on this board are absolutely not conducive to calm or rational preparation for anything. (MY GOD - some of them are not conducive to sanity.) Check out Christian Computing / Steve Hewitt if you want stories about divorce or financial messes or other nasty things that have happened to people who panicked over the Y2K bug. And the potential is there for even worse things to happen to people.

So I took on the self imposed and more or less thankless task of trying to keep a little reality imposed on the Y2K subject. I don't expect rewards from this, or applause - I just feel it as an obligation to try to keep a certain level of calm on an emotional subject that happens to be related to the field in which I make my living.

-- Paul Davis (, April 21, 1999.

But to make the leap to a ten-year depression doesn't compute. I'm here trying to find logical reasoning on how you make this leap.


Infrastructure problems will not last 10 years. But, if you take a stock market suffering from "irrational exuberance" and then mix in the potential problems described by these government officials...

...a repeat of 1929 doesn't sound so far-fetched.


Experts warn of Y2K trade upheaval

Each nation's problem will become a global one



WASHINGTON -- Experts on the millennium computer bug warned Congress last week that international commerce and trade may face serious disruptions early next year because of computer failures in foreign countries.

Painting an alarming but uncertain picture, a National Intelligence Council officer and a State Department watchdog told a special Senate oversight panel on Friday that many foreign nations are not prepared.

"It is becoming increasingly clear that there will be Y2K-related problems in virtually very corner of the globe," Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers, inspector general of the Department of State, told a hearing of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem.

"Faced with a relentless and unforgiving deadline, countries have to make difficult decisions concerning the use of scarce resources to fix a problem that has not yet occurred," she said.


The international transportation sector is particularly vulnerable, she and Lawrence K. Gershwin, National Intelligence Council officer for science and technology, said. "Global linkages in telecommunications, financial systems, the manufacturing supply chain, oil supplies, trade and worldwide shipping and air transportation will virtually guarantee that Y2K problems will not be isolated to individual countries," Mr. Gershwin said.

Among the difficulties the two officials outlined:

Both the Panama and Suez canals face the risk of disrupted operations should traffic management systems or ship steering mechanisms fail. Panama officials say no ships will be allowed into the canal on Dec. 31. A Norwegian firm is working now on fixing the Suez Canal's traffic system.

China probably will experience failures in several areas, including transportation and power generation. An estimated 90% of software used in China, even by government offices and state-owned enterprises, is pirated, making it very difficult to approach vendors for fixes. China is planning to conduct a nationwide aviation test. Senior officials have been ordered to fly on New Year's Day.

Central and Eastern Europe are believed to face vulnerabilities in Soviet-designed nuclear power plants, though Western experts do not know what specific problems they may have. Many vendors of the software and equipment stopped operating after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Russia Gazprom natural gas pipeline network is susceptible to potential Y2K outages. It supplies nearly 50% of the total energy consumed by Russia. While Gazprom has backup plans, it is unclear whether these measures are sufficient to deal with the scale of problems that could occur.

Major oil-producing nations are behind in fixing their Y2K problems. Oil production and distribution is largely in the hands of multinational corporations, but the sector's use of information technology is highly intensive.


-- Kevin (, April 21, 1999.

Italics off.

-- Kevin (, April 21, 1999.

>I have a question for Mr Poole and Maria and others that hang around here and do their best to convince us that nothing is going to happen...WHY?<

Uh ... because you people are talking about running the banks in November and December ... among other things, maybe? That affects _ME_, Buh'wheat, not just you. :)

Your question speaks volumes about your mindset. My question would be, why should this annoy you? Are you that uninterested in the truth?

You've been misled from day one by hucksters who've wanted a piece of your wallet, and people speculating WAY outside of their specialties.

The latter have made all sorts of wild and crazy predictions -- none of which, to date, has come true, mind you; I notice that no one here wants to discuss that.

Instead, you keep changing focus. First, we were told to look for the "early signs" of Y2K last winter. I did; nothing happened.

Then, I was told to watch February 4th, then April 1st, the Dow hitting 10,000, etc., ad nauseum. Nothing really bad has happened yet.

"What about embeddeds!" became the war cry. Sorry, Gartner Group says; it's not an issue.

Some are now banking on Beach's irrational "secondary clocks" nonsense, while others are saying, "OK, we're alright, but whaddabout ALL THOSE OTHER NATIONS?!?"

(Yeah. Right. All three (3) computers in Afghanistan and Zaire might fail. Yep, that could kill us. Great point.)

Why am I doing this? Because panic is STUPID. You ought to see the email my Web site generates; one common response is, "Stephen, thank you for calming me down. I'm beginning to take a second look at this."

THAT'S why.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, April 21, 1999.


"Uh ... because you people are talking about running the banks in November and December"

Gallup poll: 55% of Americans expect bank computer systems to fail

It looks like you've got a little more to worry about than this forum, like 54.999% of the American population.

"(Yeah. Right. All three (3) computers in Afghanistan and Zaire might fail. Yep, that could kill us. Great point.)"


"It has gained fame and notoriety SOLEY [sic] because it coincides with the Spooky and Mystical Dawn of the New Millennium"

Man, did I have you wrong. When you first showed up here, while I didn't agree with you, I did respect your opinion. I thought you were an intelligent guy. After seeing the above remarks, well, what can I say, your IQ is starting to show. You have just lost all of your credibility with me. I was starting to think about some of your points on the Beach issue. So much for that. I have said the following to you before, but retracted it based on what seemed like a few logical answers on your part. Not this time.

Go on home to the Y2K Debunkers Site, and leave us wackos alone, please.


-- Sysman (, April 21, 1999.

Paul: not sure where you got your figures from, but they smell funny so I assume you pulled them from your dunghole.

Gartner Group failure projections:

98 5%
99 25%
00 55%
01 15%
So as you can see, you wildman, the party's just beginning!

And here's a good argument of why we are not "seeing" early failures:

POLLYANNA: Something that a lot of people seem to be overlooking is that Y2k started in earnest the first of this year as a number of significant milestones began to pass. Several of them have already passed. Y2k is no longer "next year". It's now. It's happening around us. Why do we see no major failures?

DOOMER: Pick a country that has expended almost nothing on y2k, say, for example, Russia. Since Russia has not evidenced any significant y2k failures, by your reasoning, it will not evidence any significant y2k failures near, on or after Jan. 1, 2000. By your reasoning, not only will there be no serious problems in the U.S., but there will be no serious problems anywhere in the world. If this is the case, then y2k was a hoax all along. Billions have been wasted, because what is called 'remediation' doesn't really matter at all.

-- a (a@a.a), April 21, 1999.


I would need for you to show me expert testimony to make me think there could be panic without cause. What I don't understand is why people who don't think Y2K needs to be prepared for, or who think it can be prepared for with little thought, bother calling here. If the news about Y2K is as good as the "optimistic" say it is, and if this news is going to get better as 1999 continues, then why do the "optimistic" keep calling here?

They say they call here because they're concerned that we will start public panic. Yet these are the same optimistic people who say news about Y2K is good and getting better.

-- Kevin (, April 21, 1999.

Kevin, your other post leads me to believe that it's bad elsewhere so it will get bad here. You have great links but how do you conclude mayhem? Good news and bad news can be found out there. How did you come to your realization about Y2K? Also people do panic without cause. I've seen it. Riots begin for no apparent reason, just because. One can not predict the reactions of the masses.

A, sweetheart, you've posted that silly response on a number of threads. Do you actually want me to consider that obtuse statement? The "reasoning" in the doomers statement is based on doomer reasoning not polly reasoning. Doomers said that things would happen now and we see no evidence of failure. So what does that mean from a doomers point of view? From my view it means the "failures" will not be as bad as predicted.

FWIW, I never said there won't be problems. Problems will definitely pop up. But unlike you, workers won't be standing around with their thumb up their butts (you do some awful things with your thumb I'm sure). They will actually be fixing whatever problems arise.

BTW, honey, Russia is toast now. Y2K won't make that much difference to them. (I'll make you choke on that green jello sweetheart.)

-- Maria (, April 22, 1999.


>Gallup poll: 55% of Americans expect bank computer systems to fail<

Another example of news being distorted beyond recognition by the Y2K Spin Machine.

The question was something like, do you think that there will be _SOME_ (or _ANY_ can't remember the exact wording) failure of banking computers systems?

Only about half of Americans responded yes. Seen in the correct light, then 45% don't think that there will be ANY significant banking COMPUTER failures.

(Interesting that Gary North omitted the word "COMPUTER" -- he posted it as, "55% expect _BANK_ failures.")

The majority indicated that they didn't think that this would be a major problem and didn't plan to take their money out of the banks.

-- Stephen

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, April 22, 1999.


In fact, I find it tremendously ironic that the general public is finally being bombarded with info about Y2K ... at the very time when the problem is being solved.

There's also the fact that many who have an agenda -- North being the best example -- are getting desperate, and have resorted to outright disinformation in an attempt to keep the Movement alive (and the $$$ flowing).

(Ex.: North says "55% expect BANKS to fail ...")

When I see distorted news, I'm going to respond. When I see false or bad information, such as the utter nonsense that Beach has been disseminating (another last-ditch attempt to keep the panic level up amongst the faithful), I will respond to that, too.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, April 22, 1999.

25% - 33% is in the range most serious discussions of Y2K use. What's your beef - I grant that Gartner is a bit lower, but not outside a normal deviation from my range by any means. Perhaps you are not taking into account the fact that a huge cluster of potential errors came early this year - 1/1/99, 1/4/99, 2/4/99, 4/1/99, 4/15/99. Even if you only regard them as half the potential for the year, that gives Gartner a total of about 18% so far. Many estimates I have read are higher than that - though I do regard 40% as a bit overdone. And I do add in the EURO introduction as a problem, which Gartner doesn't, as so many Y2Kers were predicting vast problems with it. Or have you just decided those dates no longer count because there were no earth shattering problems on any of them? Sorry, that is not how I do business.

And BTW, are you accepting all of Gartner's prognostications? Or just trying to shoot me down? Most folks here regard Gartner as a high end polly.

-- Paul Davis (, April 22, 1999.

I would LOVE to accept that "the problem is "just now"being solved" but I need something to hang my hat on here. Ineed a few power companiues to stand up and say that their IV&V team from Anderson Consulting just gave them a clean bill. I need a couple large banks to do as the one small bank on another thread has done and stand up and, without equivocation, say they are fully ready, no weasel-atty words just "DONE and finished".

I need, oh, 3 or 4 Fortune 500 firms a day to say the same thing. I need that it is NOT big news when an agency at the Federal level has a good IV&V report. Until then, I can't accept that this is "being solved" just yet.


-- chuck, a Night Driver (, April 22, 1999.


Maybe what you should do instead is go back and reconsider the original premise behind Y2K Doom: that non-compliance = disaster, or, in plain English: that computer failures AUTOMATICALLY imply other failures.

This is what I mean when I talk of specialists speculating outside of their specialty. I will readily listen to an IS/IT type tell me whether his/her computer systems will have problems in Y2K. What I am NOT willing to listen to is that person speculating on how badly the organization will be damaged if the computer system fails. That's not his/her purview.

Likewise, when the power company engineers tell me that they're confident that they'll keep my bulbs lit and my heater heatin', I believe them. Why? Because they're the ones who actually get their fingers dirty keeping the machines running. The IS/IT type can -- once again -- feel free to tell me how likely his/her mainframe might fail to send out correct bills, but I'm not the least bit interested in their opinion of how likely it is that the power will stay on.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, April 22, 1999.

Kevin, your other post leads me to believe that it's bad elsewhere so it will get bad here. You have great links but how do you conclude mayhem?


"Conclude mayhem"? That's a loaded phrase. I believe there is a greater chance of significant disruptions due to Y2K than the chances of my needing to use my auto or health insurance in the next 12 months. Be prepared.

For many in the U.S., the impact is likely to be felt as shortages or other economic problems, rather than a problem with local utilities. Rural utilities are especially said to still be at risk, though.

My opinion currently is that

-- Kevin (, April 22, 1999.

Also people do panic without cause. I've seen it. Riots begin for no apparent reason, just because. One can not predict the reactions of the masses.


Now we're coming to the crux of the issue here. Even though you're not an "expert", you think panic is quite possible. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is. If Y2K problems are also quite possible, then is it moral to discourage prudent personal contingency planning in the name of preventing "panic"? I don't see the risk of "panic" being greater than the risk of Y2K causing significant disruptions.

They go hand-in-hand. Or to quote Frank Sinatra's "Love And Marriage"..."You can't have one without the other". Whatever does happen late this year or early next year depends on whether the world started working on Y2K soon enough.

-- Kevin (, April 22, 1999.

Paul: Yes, Gartner is very overly optimistic. Has been ever since they landed the big contracts from the Washington and DoD.

-- a (a@a.a), April 22, 1999.

When I see distorted news, I'm going to respond. When I see false or bad information, such as the utter nonsense that Beach has been disseminating (another last-ditch attempt to keep the panic level up amongst the faithful), I will respond to that, too.


What you said there sounds reasonable. Just be sure that in your quest for accuracy... don't cross a line and end up bearing false witness against your neighbor.

-- Kevin (, April 22, 1999.

Kevin, please continue to prepare. I'm not saying that you shouldn't. I just want to understand your (or more specifically any doomer - I don't mean to call you out, it's just that you were the first who responded) reasoning on your conclusions on Y2K. Further, I guess I agree with your estimate on significant disruptions. How significant? I think that may be high but that we can resolve the problems. These disruptions won't lead to a ten-year depression.

Sorry, I have to disagree on panic. I've seen riots break out especially during mid-afternoon when school lets out. I'm not talking school ground skuffle; I'm talking setting people on fire, guns shots, bombs. I've spent a few nights over friend's house because it was safe to go home. No apparent reason for the riots, just because. This doesn't make me an expert but what I'm saying is panic is very unpredictible. I would even guess that if the masses were "prepared", there could still be riots and panic. There were numerous threads on this topic before.

Chuck, I appreciate your need to have companies come forward. Unfortunately most won't be "complete" (this word should be defined) until June or September. We're finishing integration test and an independent contractor is coming in but that "certification" won't be complete until September. Further, we have a "freeze" on new development at that time to help isolate possible Y2K problems at the rollover. I hope that companies will be more forthcoming during the summer months but there are no warranties.

-- Maria (, April 22, 1999.


First, you need the latest link>

Second, if there's anything in there that you specifically object to, let me know what it is. If you like, send it via email.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, April 23, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ