Y2K repairsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
The state office were I work is having Y2K repairs to office computers today. MY "technician" is currently doing 3 pcs simultaneously --- Y2K testing, installing Word 97, Microsoft Exchange 5.0 , and other software (still keeping Windows NT 4.0). He hopes to be done in 20 to 25 Mins. But he does have plenty of "Y2K compliant" stickers.
So far he has done 10 pcs this morning. The stickers look real nice.
Rest easy knowing that this state (WI) has throughly inspected and tested all systems.
I know PC repairs are the easy ones, but ....................................
-- Jon Johnson (email@example.com), May 07, 1999
A question about Windows, Jon or whomever. If, as I understand it, there is not yet any compliant version of Windows (nothing for NT, still very buggy for 98, and perhaps just becoming fully compliant for 95), can it honestly be said that a PC is compliant? Alternatively, could it be said to be compliant, but only for those PCs with applications which could care less about the rollover (like maybe wordprocessing)?
-- Brooks (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 07, 1999.
Believe it or not, this "mini"-project took 40 Mins --- almost twice as long as projected! (LOL)
Brooks: My point is what you're alluding to --- theres no way these machines could be considered compliant --- they are just being given the cusory look/test and marked compliant if nothing immediate turns up. NT or Windows Y2K issues are not even addressed.
Not the technicians fault. His check sheet lists 24 items, 2 of which are Y2K related --- and he was hired from the local college class for 3 weeks only. He gets an A for this portion of his intern/class if he completes this job on time --- they go around to state offices with 6 of these techs at one time --- batch testing you could call it, I guess.
The "real" important stuff is installing the new state letterhead, new printer drivers, and the like.
I guess the state is assuming (hoping) the genric quick test you can get anywhere, including the internet, will solve all problems.
Again, the point is my direct experience today shows that the Y2K compliance program and "repairs" being done here today are based largely on HOPE, not known/researched/tested FACT.
-- Jon Johnson (email@example.com), May 07, 1999.
My guess is that the Y2K testing your technician performed was to test your PCs' BIOS software handling of the system clock. (BIOS = Basic Input/Output System = a miniature operating system at an ultra-basic level, sort of)
That would fit your description of his actions: takes only a few minutes, has nothing to do with the OS or applications packages, and since a PC's BIOS would rarely be updated (plus, once the BIOS is Y2K-compliant, future updates are highly likely to remain so) it makes sense ... sort of (see below) ... to label the physical PC as "Y2K compliant" even if the OS or applications are not.
>theres no way these machines could be considered compliant --- they are just being given the cusory look/test and marked compliant if nothing immediate turns up. NT or Windows Y2K issues are not even addressed.
Well ... if my guess is correct, the test was valid, but not anywhere near to being as comprehensive as the simplistic sticker wording implies. It was a limited test, but passage is labeled with a misleadingly unlimited wording.
Personally, I would have specified that the stickers say "Y2K-compliant BIOS" to make it clear that only that component had been tested. It's misleading for those stickers to say only "Y2K compliant" because so many people will be misled into thinking that it refers to the more familiar components - operating system and applications software.
>I guess the state is assuming (hoping) the genric quick test you can get anywhere, including the internet, will solve all problems.
This isn't being helped any by people who know better, but promote a BIOS Y2K test as being more comprehensive than it really is. Whoever was responsible for those stickers' wording should be ... (fill in your favorite punishment for stupidity).
>direct experience today shows that the Y2K compliance program and "repairs" being done here today are based largely on HOPE, not known/researched/tested FACT.
Well ... my advice is to be careful about drawing conclusions like that about Y2K. My experience is that most people are unaware of some of the subtle complexities within the suite of calendar-related computer problems nicknamed "Y2K". I think what you had there was a mislabeled test result, not an inadequate test.
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 08, 1999.