Im working a y2k network/desktop project for a very large investment company in St. Louis. I will not divulge the name, it wouldnt help our cause and I need to work. This y2k remediation project has been going on for over a year, Ive been with the team for ~5 months. As with so many like companies, we had a required completion date of June 30th.

THE STAGE:

July 1st 1999. Y2k Network team meeting, ~20 team members present. The representative for the company is giving the team an update on overall progress and future timeline. Ill paraphrase from now on and the text is not verbatim.

COMPANY REP:  As you all know your contracts have been extended through July. We failed to meet our June 30th goal. Specifically because of stonewalling on the part of some of the upper management. I appreciate your efforts and you are not responsible for this failure.  To make this short and sweet the plans have changed. Once again. In all honesty I do not know what the next step will be. I expect that to be addressed sometime next week. Incidentally, I was asked to reduce the staff of this team to a skeleton crew. I refused.

A TEAM MEMBER  Wont the NYSE send auditors to verify y2k compliance?

COMPANY REP If they do, we expect a 2 or 3 day notice in advance, in which case youll be working 16 hours a day to remove non-compliant machines, no matter what the residual cost to the company due to lost revenue and clients.

A TEAM MEMBER Doesnt the company have to send an official compliance statement to the NYSE?

COMPANY REP  Yes. I believe we have until the 6th or 7th of July to deliver it. Be aware, what we say in this meeting is not to leave this room understood? HEADS NOD  When we deliver the statement to the NYSE next week, it will say Compliant whether we are or not, thats the bottom line. THIS TIME HEADS SHAKE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT

Their wasnt much said after that that would be of interest to this forum so Ill skip it. Thats all for now, Im going to clear this with someone I trust before I post this. You know CYA. Short of revealing the company name, I will answer all reasonable questions regarding this post.

Thanks,

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999

Answers

When we deliver the statement to the NYSE next week, it will say Compliant whether we are or not, thats the bottom line.

For anyone who has worked for a Fortune 500 company, this is routine. "Bottom line" rules. This statement can't be checked for at least 6 months, really 9 under the rules. Call me in March 2000, and I'll tell you how we did in the Y2K project.

That's the bottom line.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 01, 1999.

Sounds all too true. The horse probably won't learn to sing in 6-9 months, but it sure beats getting beheaded today.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 01, 1999.

Very cute Mike and nice "headline" title. Just one question - why the bogus post? ;) The facts: 1. The NYSE doesn't send out auditors for Y2K, it's not their job. 2. Y2K status is reported to the SEC, not the "NYSE". 3. If you need 20 people and months to "replace" your machines, you must be talking about desktops and a LOT of them. I would say you are in pretty good shape, because the odds are good that all you have to do is have everyone reboot and set the clock on Jan 1, 2000. The PCs will hold the date just fine from then on, and you're y2k ready! If you have a bios that won't hold the new century, upgrade your bios, if you can't do that, put in a patch file - you can do that on any PC and it only takes 5 minutes.

Regards,

-- FactFinder (shaking head side to side) (FactFinder@bzn.com), July 01, 1999.

Dog Gone

Please revisit the BIS thread.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@It's ALL going away in January.com), July 01, 1999.

FactFinder: Yes, this story just couldn't be true. Nope. Not even one scenario like this could have ever been allowed to happen in corporate america cause they're so motivated by "the bottom line".

And the government is 98% done. And the FAA. And the banks. And the utilities. And Oil&Gas.

Moron.

-- a (a@a.a), July 01, 1999.

aaa or whatever, I deal in facts. I listed the factual flaws in the above story. You are free to accept any information you wish, factual or mythical. This was a bogus post, and I called it right.

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), July 01, 1999.

Although I respect Flint's opinon, and this scene may very well play out in a board room somewhere, but I smell doo-doo on this post.

Points about the number of desktops and BIOS flashes are right.

If you have a PC that isn't compliant, you can set the BIOS back to 1980 and it will still work.

And, it IS the SEC, not NYSE, that would audit.

Way to go, BS patrol.

-- JAW (clueless@pollyanna.com), July 01, 1999.

Thanks Mike

No suprise. Business is business. Being compliant equals survival. The truth is irrelevent.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), July 01, 1999.

COMPANY REP:  As you all know your contracts have been extended through July. We failed to meet our June 30th goal. Specifically because of stonewalling on the part of some of the upper management.

(Hmmm..."COMPANY REP" apparently has no problem with badmouthing management.)

COMPANY REP  Yes. I believe we have until the 6th or 7th of July to deliver it. Be aware, what we say in this meeting is not to leave this room understood?

(Hmmm...Nice job of maintaining your confidentiality there Mike. [assuming Mike was one of the head-nodders])

NYSE Auditors - Status reports sent to the NYSE - etc.

-- CD (shaking head in sync with FactFinder) (not@here.com), July 01, 1999.

Shit head writes:

"Very cute Mike and nice "headline" title. Just one question - why the bogus post? ;) The facts: 1. The NYSE doesn't send out auditors for Y2K, it's not their job. 2. Y2K status is reported to the SEC, not the "NYSE". 3. The PCs will hold the date just fine from then on, and you're y2k ready! If you have a bios that won't hold the new century, upgrade your bios, if you can't do that, put in a patch file you can do that on any PC and it only takes 5 minutes." FactFinder (shaking head side to side) (FactFinder@bzn.com), July 01, 1999.

Well Mr. (self defined) "FactFinder",

Thank you for the troll post. As far as the NYSE and the Security Exchange Commission (sp?) I don't know hell from high water (to many acronyms) , I just quote the source. But, (my troll with out bait), you're clueless when it comes to replacing "pc's" on a network that transfer millions of dollare an HOUR".

##################################### Mr. (self defined) "FactFinder" says,

"If you need 20 people and months to "replace" your machines, you must be talking about desktops and a LOT of them. I would say you are in pretty good shape, because the odds are good that all you have to do is have everyone reboot and set the clock on Jan 1, 2000."

###################################################

Well pin head, try replacing 500 0r 600 odd software packages. And those on machines running DOS 5.0, Win 3.1 and assorted Unix and Main Frames, all connected via analog lines! You full of crap!

Go ahead and set YOUR clocks back at Billy Bobs Doughnut Emporium.

Friggin moron.

Thanks, Dog Gone and Flint, This piss for brains has sprung a leak, and it stinks......I think I'll go watch "Brave Heart" again to get focused.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.

Eloquently said.

-- Impressed at your verbacity (duh@dum.dum), July 01, 1999.

Upon further review...

Mike. I blame my post on being overly sensitive to the possibility of your post being just another in a long line of recent troll messages that have been popping up here. I have just read your response to FactFinder. Your explanation regarding the acronyms made perfect sense to me. Also, I'm no techie but after hearing how passionate you were about your position on the pc/technical issue, I can see you are definitely sincere. My apologies.

-- CD (not @here.com), July 01, 1999.

Hold on - not so fast there...if you take the third letter of every sentence you get "Y2K Pro is one bad burger flipper"

-- a (a@a.a), July 02, 1999.

CD,

Thank you, yes I am very sincere on this issue. I have been a "2" with the possibility of a "5" since I became a GI. I have never been attacked by doomers even though pollies will tell you TB2K only excepts Doomers. Thats bullshit. I'm rambling now. Sorries. (Piss on you grammar queen). Back to the issue at hand, I simply related my experience today. This meeting did happen. It sent a sliver into my polly/GI thoughts. That "sliver" along with the info from this form and others made the earth tremble beneath my feet. Scary stuff.

Done for now

Thanks,

Sysops, please be slow on the deletes. Its best for all. GBA.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

Uhhhhh... with respect to the issue of whether or not the NYSE is involved in Y2K... from the NYSE's Web site:

Remarks by Richard A. Grasso Chairman and Chief Executive Officer New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate April 28, 1998

Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings and Members of the Committee. I am Richard A. Grasso, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE or Exchange). Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to discuss the impact of the year-2000 computer problem, as well as potential solutions to address this problem. We view the dimensions of this issue as enormous, with potentially disastrous global consequences to both business and government...

At the NYSE, we are addressing the year-2000 issue on multiple levels, beginning with the direct impact of this issue on the NYSE itself, and extending to the international capital markets; our member firms, for whom we have oversight responsibility...

More than 300 of the nation's broker-dealers that deal with the public are NYSE member firms, for which we have primary oversight responsibility as their "designated examining authority" ("DEA"). These broker-dealers carry and clear transactions for approximately 91 percent of all customer accounts maintained by U.S. registered broker-dealers. We have woven year-2000 compliance into our surveillance and examination program for these firms. As part of our monitoring process, we have created an internal year-2000 surveillance committee to coordinate our relevant surveillance and examination efforts. NYSE member-firm regulation staff members contact each of our member firms quarterly regarding the member firm's year-2000 compliance efforts. In addition, we include year- 2000 readiness as part of our annual financial and operational examinations. Our efforts are focused on trying to ensure that our member firms are prepared for the industry-wide testing scheduled for early 1999.

Last May, we sent a memo to our member firms on the year-2000 problem. In that memo, we advised each firm that it should designate a senior official as having responsibility to oversee the firm's year- 2000 project. We further advised the firm that it should identify the scope of its year-2000 problem and that it should allocate the people, time and money necessary to address the problem. The memo stated that, realistically, the year-2000 project should have a target completion date of December 1998, with 1999 available for system testing and adjustments.

Our May 1997 memo also asked member firms to complete a survey regarding their year- 2000 plans in an effort to determine their preparedness. While we generally were pleased with the results of the survey, we identified a few firms that needed to focus more closely on this problem. In late 1997 we conducted a second survey to determine the readiness of vendors, correspondent brokers and other third parties that interface with NYSE member firms. In reviewing the responses to this survey, Exchange staff noted some minor problems, which staff members have discussed with member firms.

The Exchange has used these two surveys to establish generic milestones. As part of the quarterly discussions with member firms, Exchange staff discuss the firms' progress towards meeting these milestones. These discussions also include updates on the milestones the firms themselves have established, as reported in the first survey. Once a firm indicates that it is year-2000 compliant, the Exchange will request a written confirmation of that fact from the firm's chief executive officer...

NYSE member firms will need to file these reports both with the SEC and with the Exchange, as the broker-dealer's DEA. The first report would be due 45 days following adoption of the rule amendment and the second report would be due within 90 days of the broker-dealer's 1998 fiscal year-end financial statements. The SEC would require a broker- dealer's public accountant to file an attestation with the second report giving the auditor's opinion as to whether there is a reasonable basis for the broker-dealer's assertions in that report.

These reports will provide both us and the SEC with comprehensive information on year- 2000 compliance efforts. In addition, the requirement for two reports will provide a basis to judge the progress of broker-dealers in developing and implementing year-2000 compliance programs. If the SEC adopts these rule amendments, the NYSE will be coordinating closely with the SEC and the other DEAs to implement the reporting requirements.

(end of Grasso testimony quotes)

This document can be found by going to:

http://www.nyse.com/public/search/07ix.htm

and entering the words "Year 2000"

It strikes me as prima facie absurd to think that the NYSE would not be involved in the Y2K compliance activities of major investment firms.

Further, the idea that all PC networks can be easily replaced or upgraded or however made compliant is breathtaking nonsense. Some, maybe. Others have proven to be living h*ll. Apps are more likely the problem in this instance- and when you're dealing with securities transactions, you're dealing with *dates*! Period, the end. Further, if the apps are old & custom-written, heaven help you. You'll need it. Beyond that, if the LAN is a mix of UNIX & various flavors of Windows/DOS... oh, my, you could be at this for a longgggg time. I have been told of one major firm (not securities-related) which has faced an absolute nightmare in dealing with a LAN mixture of PCs & UNIX (this despite UNIX's own Y2K compatibility). Considering the fact that Y2K problems escalate with the addition of integration of other systems, I can imagine the headaches a company could go through.

None of this confirms Mike's story- we can't do that short of being there- but it certainly refutes "Fact" Finder's "dealing in facts." He cannot hardly say "I called it right."

-- truman burbank (truman@seahaven.dome), July 02, 1999.

Hello? Is this Billy Bob's Doughnut Emporium? Is that you FactFinder? Say, listen......I'd like to place an order for a dozen doughnuts, hun.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

Hey FartFinder - did you want sprinkles on those?

-- FartFinder is full of shit (and has nodded off) (cream@filled.), July 02, 1999.

Burbank,

Over the course of months we HAVE identified ALL the "non compliant" hardware and software. The problem comes when we as Network/Desktop technicians ask the "user" to step aside while we replace their machines/servers. They store much of their data on those machines and they need it "real bad". That means we have to accomplish the following in the "users" acceptable time frame.

THIS IS A TIPICAL SITUATION: 1) Determine where all user data is and dump it on to a zip or network drive, it might be a stand-alone or a network machine. User logs off. (Foot tamping to the clock on the wall)

2) Replace the workstation and/or upgrade existing OS and remove all non-compliant software and reinstall all compliant software.

3) Install new corporate "standard" modems on the machine.

4) Test the machine for "corporate standards of efficiency"

5) Sit with the "user" (who might have been using DOS 5 and Word Perfect 5.0) and talk them through the fundamentals of "Dial Up Networking","Win NT" or "Win 98".

6) Then the fun starts. You have to deal with all the vendors, exsplaining the fact you are now using a different OS, your old drivers will not work on NT or Win98. What they say! Our packages are y2k compliant! Just look at our website!!.

7) Then you spend 14 hours to dial in and SUCESSFULLY transmit to this fabulous new compliant software. Shit goes on and on........

So "Pin-Head", if you can dispute this with "FACTS" as some pinhead wrongly claimed to do at the beginning of this post, give it your best shot. It will fall short.

Grow up or shut up.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

Aw, the wonders of using a spellchecker.

-- impressed (learned@to.spell), July 02, 1999.

Ah, IT wrote:

I see that you -

"impressed (learned@to.spell), July 02, 1999"

############################

Hey TROLL. Your name is new, yet you noticed I spelled "that" correctly. Very perseptive. Let see, can I spell this right? Away Troglodite". No? Who gives a shit? Bye, find a new handle and start a new life.

For those I have confused. This troll is refering to my bad spelling, to which I freely admit. However "it's" purpose is to abstruct the forum, not to contribute. So the next time you have to take a leak, well you get the idea (troll under the bridge)...... On to "Brave Heart"!.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

It would be neat if there was such a thing as a logic checker, it could be used in connection with the spell checker.

-- Not as Impressed as I once was (not@under.MyBridge), July 02, 1999.

FactFinder, JAW and CD are merely an extension of the pervase LYING and DECEIT that have gone on with regard to y2k.

Their existence here is quite limited.

Thanks Mike, keep us posted. Pay no attention to these SLEEZE BALLS.

Ray

-- Ray (ay@totacc.com), July 02, 1999.

what kind of beans did the team leader spill? just wondering as i'm thinking about doing a quick shop this weekend. i hope he cleaned them up.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.

Mike,

Excellent Post. Boy does your story sound familiar in a variety of different industries,in more ways than one. My people in the oil and gas business state pretty much the same story line. The only difference is the names and technical data points change but the plot remains the same, including threats.

I take it you are not an employee of the investment firm but a part of a consulting firm that was hired to remediate the computer systems. Therefore, all the critics should take note that Mike then should not be expected to answer the kind of technical questions one would expect from a brokerage employee. However, Burbank... I think your post was well-done and confirms that Mike did indeed have it right to begin with. I've got a lot of friends that are or were stockbrokers and while the SEC is the regulatory arm... Brokerage firms with seats on the NYSE get the extra examinations from within NYSE itself.

I'm amazed at how the Polly-trolls can spout off pure garbage cans full of lies and make them look like absolute documented truth that unwitting undecideds will swallow whole as the "gospel-truth." Fact-finder doesn't know what "facts" are apparently, let alone finding them.

Equally amazing is how we won't see fact-finder and his associates coming back to apologize anytime soon to Mike. BUT IF THEY WERE GENUINE MEN (or WOMEN)... they'd step up to the forum and post an apology. At least that should gain some modicum of respect. But will they do that? Nahhhh... this shows what lack of character they really have and their disregard for TRUTH. They have their minds made up and reality won't change it, at least not for 6 more months.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), July 02, 1999.

here, here r.c. spoken like one who knows the truth when he sees it. from all indications it would appear that your mind has remained open. openmindedness can lead to some wonderful possibilities.

an openminded peck on the cheek big guy.

.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.

Midwest Mike,

My previous post was primarily intended to expose "Fact" Finder's complete lack of knowledge about the "facts" he supposedly knew about. The speculation about networks was mainly in defense of the possibility of the truth of your statement, not the opposite. I did not deserve your scorn.

Goodbye.

-- Truman Burbank (truman@seahaven.dome), July 02, 1999.

Don't feel bad, Truman. Midwest Mike insults everyone. He's a Paul Milne wanna-be without the intelligence to go with it. He says things like "abstruct" the forum, when he means abstract or probably distract. Don't bother trying to help him, it's useless.

-- Mike is a (powder@keg.waiting to explode), July 02, 1999.

No, he meant "obstruct". Duh.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), July 02, 1999.

In Support of Mike:

I have spent the better part of six months doing Y2K Desktop upgrades as a help to our Y2K team. At best speed it took 4 - 6 hours per desktop to replace a machine on the users desk. It broke out in time as follows: 5 - 10 minutes to dupe Master Hard Drive onto slave, 1 hour to reconfigure all the users previous network resources (printers,shared drives, fax servers, modem pool settings. Then it takes another 2 - 4 hours to copy and reconfigure all their special software(that DOS version of Word Perfect5.1)(moving copies of ini files, their links from their browser(bookmark.html), e-mail address books)templates and macros from their old word processor), silly screen savers, recover all their data, and then teach them how to use the new software and O.S.)

You Pollys feel that you can just upgrade over a tape backup from 3.1 to NT Workstation and be done, but it really doesn't work that way. Most of the time upgrades fail or the data on the users drive is corrupted or damaged by viruses, or even the upgrade from FAT16 to FAT32 or NTFS just isn't compatable with the programs that are being moved to the new systems and they need special tweaking to run right.

Then you get those users that want the new machine to look *exactly* like their old one (usually the Board of Directors) hours in that case can spread to days. All this special configuration takes time and can push a Y2K upgrade from days to months or more.

-- ExCop (yinadral@juno.com), July 02, 1999.

Okay - so we all have been told "Mike" is a powderked, with a short fuse less.

Even "a powder keg with a short fuse" can be extremely useful, applied the right way, at the right time, with the right safety precautions.

When one's job is to build a road, for example, isn't it easier to blow up a mountain with a powder keg than with a fire cracker?

The fact that he may have a short temper doesn't mean anything - if his information is accurate. And if his information is wrong, it is no more wrong than that repeated from the federal government.

It is more credible, however, than the federal government from several aspects:

He has no specific reason to lie. (The federal government fears for their jobs, their leader's job, and (most important) their reputations and power.)

He has no financial or political reason to hide the truth - in fact, if it ever discovered he released the "truth" - he is likely to be fired, and the company auditted or fined. (This current government has proven its intentions, efforts, and capability of lying. It owes its entire existence to fabrivcation and lies.)

The scenario is plausible and has occurred many times before. (The government is deliberately told us it will begin a "public relations plan" deliberately to convince the people of the degree of progress, while basing their "predictions" hoping that all things will be true based on "reported completions" from agencies who themselves have resons to hide the "truth".)

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 02, 1999.

Okay - so we all have been told "Mike" is a powder keg, with a short fuse, no less.

Even "a powder keg with a short fuse" can be extremely useful, if it is applied the right way, at the right time, with the right safety precautions.

When one's job is to build a road, for example, isn't it easier to blow up a mountain with a powder keg than with a fire cracker?

The fact that he may have a short temper doesn't mean anything - if his information is accurate. And if his information is wrong, it is no more wrong than that repeated from the federal government.

It is more credible, however, than the federal government from several aspects:

He has no specific reason to lie. (The federal government fears for their jobs, their leader's job, and (most important) their reputations and power.)

He has no financial or political reason to hide the truth - in fact, if it is ever discovered he released the "truth" as reported in this meeting - he is likely to be fired, and the company auditted or fined. (This current government has proven its intentions, efforts, and capability of lying. It owes its entire existence to fabrivcation and lies. It has proven its ability to use the IRS to obtain political power, and to use the IRS to debase and harass their opponents.)

The scenario itself is plausible and has occurred many times before. (But would the government lie? Well, it has deliberately told us it will begin a "public relations plan" with taxpayer money deliberately to convince the people of the degree of y2K progress, while basing these optimistic "predictions" hoping that all things will be true based on "reported completions" from agencies who themselves have millions of dollars of reasons to hide the "truth".)

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 02, 1999.

. Someone wrote?:

Don't feel bad, Truman. Midwest Mike insults everyone. He's a Paul Milne wanna-be without the intelligence to go with it. He says things like "abstruct" the forum, when he means abstract or probably distract. Don't bother trying to help him, it's useless.

-- Mike is a (powder@keg.waiting to explode), July 02, 1999. . Anyone who has spent time on this forum knows Im usually pretty laid back. I have blown a gasket a time or two, many of us have. I guess I had an unusually large bur under my saddle last night. I was nervous about posting this information. I was overly hostile. Kind of a Throwing down the Gauntlet thing. As someone suggested, I think I really could have used a logic checker at some point, it might have kept my foot out of my mouth. My sincere apologies to those I jumped on out of line (this sock tastes like shit!). R. Cook, you have seen enough of my posts to know I am not a powder keg. Having said that, I do thank you for the support. I dont believe you meant to defend my position. I suspect logic dictated your response as it usually does (not that we always agree on what is logical).

Truman, those Pin-Head and Grow Up Or Shut up comments were not directed at you. Sorry for my miscommunication. Thank you for the supportive information. Keep it up.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

Ah, but kind sir - one needs powder kegs every now and then. 8<) A mellow, remote, therectical or analytical touch ain't much good by itself either!

It takes all kinds, each appropriate at the right time: You can't move a mountain of public indifference and administration propaganda with a battery (a quiet, well controlled stored source of energy), a wooden pole (rather dull and flexible by itself), nor a drilling rod of tempered steel (hard, sharp, very determined and equally inflexible, but not very "broad minded" - rather "pointy" in fact - yes - even "inflexible people like milne have a perpose in this discussion!) or a hammer - hard at one end, flexible at the other....if each is used by itself.

Put them together - with the _controlled_ energy from a primed "powder keg" - wire them together properly (the internet) and apply the switch. Then you can move mountains.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 02, 1999.

. Someone wrote?:

Don't feel bad, Truman. Midwest Mike insults everyone. He's a Paul Milne wanna-be without the intelligence to go with it. He says things like "abstruct" the forum, when he means abstract or probably distract. Don't bother trying to help him, it's useless.

-- Mike is a (powder@keg.waiting to explode), July 02, 1999. . Anyone who has spent time on this forum knows Im usually pretty laid back. I have blown a gasket a time or two, many of us have. I guess I had an unusually large bur under my saddle last night. I was nervous about posting this information. I was overly hostile. Kind of a Throwing down the Gauntlet thing. As someone suggested, I think I really could have used a logic checker at some point, it might have kept my foot out of my mouth. My sincere apologies to those I jumped on out of line (this sock tastes like shit!).

R. Cook, you have seen enough of my posts to know I am not a powder keg. Having said that, I do thank you for the support. I dont believe you meant to defend my position. I suspect logic dictated your response as it usually does (not that we always agree on what is logical).

Truman, those Pin-Head and Grow Up Or Shut up comments were not directed at you. Sorry for my miscommunication. Thank you for the supportive information. Keep it up.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

From Mike 

Over the course of months we HAVE identified ALL the "non compliant" hardware and software. The problem comes when we as Network/Desktop technicians ask the "user" to step aside while we replace their machines/servers. They store much of their data on those machines and they need it "real bad". That means we have to accomplish the following in the "users" acceptable time frame.

From Ex-Cop

I have spent the better part of six months doing Y2K Desktop upgrades as a help to our Y2K team. At best speed it took 4 - 6 hours per desktop to replace a machine on the users desk. It broke out in time as follows: 5 - 10 minutes to dupe Master Hard Drive onto slave, 1 hour to reconfigure all the users previous network resources (printers,shared drives, fax servers, modem pool settings. Then it takes another 2 - 4 hours to copy and reconfigure all their special software(that DOS version of Word Perfect5.1)(moving copies of ini files, their links from their browser(bookmark.html), e-mail address books)templates and macros from their old word processor), silly screen savers, recover all their data, and then teach them how to use the new software and O.S.)

Sheesh - you guys have just confirmed what our techs told us a couple of weeks ago. Two guys - 150-200 desktops. And they haven't started yet.

sigh.

-- justme (finally@home.com), July 02, 1999.

just-me,

yep, it makes for some scary shit!

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.

Mike and other commenters are confirming what we forget about y2k remediation: you're often upgrading the whole system, not just debugging code.

Re-compile *every* COBOL program, with old compilers and no documentation. The "background noise" become louder than the date- related bugs.

SAP installations that get stuck at 3/4 implemented. Do we back out and go back to FOF?

Lockdown dates now proposed around 9/30. And then, do you bend it, and for which changes?

Win 3.1 apps on 486s that were doing just fine, thank you. We had no plans to change this system as long as it did its job. Now we have to do *every* new system install in 6 months that we might have done over the next 5 years. Overload! Suspense! Burnout?

(I've always just started fresh on every new PC I've bought - about every 3 years; just bring over the minimum necessary data, let the new system burn in, let the old fade away. Work them in parallel, don't let them get too buddy-buddy too soon. Distrust quick transfers, go slow and understand what I'm doing. I'm the tiniest small biz user possible, and I've got some migration work still to do from my 1994 desktop to my 1997 and 1999-to-be. Get started any day now.)

What a GREAT time to be out of large organizations!

My garden fence seems not to be deer-compliant, but I guess I'll get to that after I've ordered my new laptop.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), July 03, 1999.

he he. Not to worry j! The deer aren't compliant either. They're y2k staple. yum yum!

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.

Mike,

Thanks a bunch for that story. It is this sort of "behind the scenes" stuff that is the bedrock truth we need. Sure can't get it from the traditional sources, can we? FactFinder is a burr under my saddle too. You should see the crap he pumps out over on EUY2K, but goes mostly unchallenged there because you can't come right out and call him the names he deserves. What a pompous asshole he is. You had a right to get upset the way you did. Keep us posted here. Best of luck.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 03, 1999.

Mike,

Thanks for info. I believe you. Not to worry, they didn't like any of my stories either! Keep us posted!

FYI, Speedway gas stations are having an awful time with "compliant" new machines! Stock up on gas quick!

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), July 03, 1999.

http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole/fixed.html

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.