comment from lurker on 9999 : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I'm not a great programmer and have only done 3 or 4 Y2K projects but I will say this. If anything of substance happens because of 9999 than Y2K is going to be terribly bad. I mean anything at all. I just can't see this 9999 deal being a bid deal. And I really don't see how it's related to Y2K. I mean chips aren't going to have a 9999 problem. And as stated by so many others the date is 090999. So if there is even the most minor of glitches because of 9999 I'll start preparing like there's no tommorow.

-- (, September 08, 1999


I hear ya.

-- Lane Core Jr. (, September 08, 1999.

You and every other mook who wasn't expecting this. 9999 and y2k aren't related at all. most people are just curious because the 9999 issue might affect large #'s of computers, (ie a shutdown/meltdown) and therefore one can attempt to draw a conclusion or a proosepctus of things to come...rock on man...:.)

-- Billy-Boy (, September 08, 1999.

I don't expect '9999' to be a big deal, but I've always been confused by one aspect of it: the whole 999999 vs. 090999 issue.

IMO, the issue deals with data, specifically when a date is required but not known. Back in the 70's, 80's & even 90's, if you didn't know the value of a date, or if it was "indefinite" (expiration date), then a common practice was to put in 999999. If the data validator wouldn't allow 999999 because it wasn't a valid date, then they probably put in 090999 or just 9999, or even 123199 - something "valid" and far into the future. In this case 999999, 9999 & 090999 are the same - they all refer to September 9, 1999.

-- Jim (x@x.x), September 08, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ