I got this from a co-worker today.

For those of you running Windows this is a fix for a small Y2K problem almost everyone should do. After running this quick little test, much to my surprise, I learned that my computer would have failed on 01-01-2000 due to a computer clock glitch. Fortunately, a quick fix is provided, should your computer fail the test.

I submit the following for your consideration: TEST: Double click on "My Computer". Double click on "Control Panel". Double click on "Regional Settings" icon. Click on the "Date" tab at the top of the page.

Where it says, "Short Date Sample" look and see if it shows a "two digit" year. Of course it does. That's the default setting for Windows 95, Windows 98 and NT. This date RIGHT HERE is the date that feeds application software and WILL NOT rollover in the year 2000. It will roll over to 00.

Click on the button across from "Short Date Style" and select the option that shows, mm/dd/yyyy. (Be sure your selection has four Y's showing, not just two).

Then click on "Apply" and then click on "OK" at the bottom.

Easy enough to fix. However, every single installation (yy) of Windows worldwide is defaulted to fail Y2K rollover.

How many people know about this? How many people know to change that? What will be the effect? Who knows! But this is another example of the pervasiveness and systematic nature of the problem.

Please pass this on to other people that you know who own home computers.

-- Mark Mastrorilli (mastrorilli@hotmail.com), August 06, 1999

Answers

Before anyone changes the default date for their operating system, they should first check this out:

http://y2k.berkeley.edu:7040/computers/fixpcs/issues/os-date...

There are potential problems with certain application programs after changing the OS to use a four-digit year format. Lotus 1-2-3 (97) is one example. Some of the limitations and disadvantages of making this change, as well as its advantages, are discussed at this link.

For most people who change their OS default date, there should be no problem. But there could be problems for others.

U.C. BERKELEY CAVEATS:

- "If you change your operating system's default date format to use four-digit years, a few of your programs may exhibit undesirable side effects."

- "In addition, changing your OS's default date format could cause problems - at least in a few cases - when sharing data with others whose computers are still using a date format with two digit years (or a different four-digit year format)."

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), August 06, 1999.

WHOOPS! Here's the entire URL:

http://y2k.berkeley.edu:7040/computers/fixpcs/issues/os-date-format.ht ml

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), August 06, 1999.

Mark

Okay, thats all well and good. However, did you actually test to see if it would roll to 1900, or some such thing. We all know here that expansion is not the only fix, windowing date logic can also be used. While it may show 00, does it interpret this as 1900 (or some other date), or 2000? That is the real question. Do you have the Y2K fixes put out by Microsoft installed for your product? Which product are you using: 95, 98, NT, 3.1?

Just things you should consider.

-- scared sh**less (nottellingyou@now.com), August 06, 1999.

scared sh**less,

I did not test this. When I read this, I felt that it was important to post here, perhaps I was premature.

-- Mark Mastrorilli (mastrorilli@hotmail.com), August 06, 1999.

Mark:

Don't Apologize. It might be something very, very real with MS Windows. I was just asking you go consider some significant issues that some will not even think about. Date expansion is not the only way to fix the Y2K problem, and display dates are not always what they seem. Don't ever feel you have to be entirely right to post here. That is what this is for: a discussion forum.

-- scared sh**less (nottellingyou@now.com), August 06, 1999.

also, if this were the only fix required, why does MS have a download for Windows 95 (et al)? i'm not trying to be sarcastic; i really don't know why.

-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), August 07, 1999.

Mark, I copied your directions and sent them to a programmer friend, asking him to test them. His response:

"The directions pass the test for accuracy. However, I'm not sure the effect of making this change will be what the author of these directions claims it will. It will definately change the way the date "looks". But whether is changes the way the date "behaves" is questionable."

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.