New Zealand y2k fy 4/1/1999 problems with accounting softwaregreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I read a reference at http://www.press.co.nz/18/990504c4.htm to the "fact" that New Zealand did experience y2k problems with accounting software when companies started their new fiscal year on 4/1/1999:
"Y2K problems are already emerging in non-compliant accounting packages, as New Zealand companies opened their books since April 1 for the 1999-2000 year to budget or plan into the next century."
Anyone know anything more about this?
-- marsh (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 05, 1999
No substantiated instances that I am aware of except to note that there are the usual problems with changes brought about by tax deduction changes. These are normal problems.
However, I note once again that these problems are unlikely to be reported in detail.
The computing industry has been traditionally very reluctant to admit to not having things up to scratch. We won't know the full story until well after the event, if ever.
Some of you may be aware of my interest in Y2K in my city.
You can find details of Emergency Management views at:
NOTE: for some of you the heading may be profanity... please be assured no offence is intended.. in NZ in context the phrase 'Oh Bugger' is accepted as a harmless expletive. equivalent to, Oh Damn.
-- Bob Barbour (email@example.com), May 05, 1999.
I never expected to find a quote this straightforward in a news article:
A report from Britain's Taskforce 2000 said the focus on January 1st, although understandable, is simplistic.
The privately-funded group said Y2K problems have already started and will not begin to wane until about a year from now. The general public will get to hear of these hiccups only if they have messy consequences. Most will be covered up and corrected as quickly as possible.
-- Kevin (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 05, 1999.
Kevin, the very objective of every Production Support team in every company is to contain and fix errors before they spread.
My guess is you could get every one of them to "admit" to this "coverup".
-- Hoffmeister (email@example.com), May 05, 1999.