What about 1999 failures?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
This issue has probably alredy been addressed, for which I apologize for the redundancy. But my question is: Since many operating systems and various billing programs are already dealing with the year 2,000, and have been for some time, why aren't we seeing the mass failures that some had predicted? I understand that there have been numerous random glitches, but they have been relatively minor have they not? In the absence of wide spead failure at this late date, doesn't it lend weight to the mainstrem opinion that the rollover itself will result in only minor annoyances rather then massive shut-downs of vital systems?
I do not happen to believe that the date change will not cause enormous problems, even catastrophes; but judging by the relative ease with which the transition has been made up to this point, why are we to assume that things will be any different in the near future?
-- Robert King (email@example.com), November 14, 1999
Good Question, but it's Y2K, not Y1999. Problems yes. Catastrophe no.
-- (Polly@wog.com), November 14, 1999.
You're quite right, which is why I don't have a five year stock. The outstanding problem (as I see it) isn't in software, it's in firmware and embedded systems, e.g. process and control devices like PLCs. And even then, most of those devices aren't even remotely date dependent.
But *some* of them are... and these things can only be fixed by replacement, which relies on you having equivelant compliant parts to hand. And why would you identify the relevant devices and order parts, but not replace them? And that is why I have 3 weeks worth of stock (just added another week) and increasing disturbed sleep patterns.
Roll on 1/1/2000, for better or worse. It's the waiting that I can't stand.
-- Colin MacDonald (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 14, 1999.
It isn't Y2K yet.
Should be soon, though. Hang on.
-- snooze button (email@example.com), November 14, 1999.
As I understand it, most billing programs are 30-day lookaheads, so problems in that area wouldn't be likely yet. The most common examples of programs so far this year that have already used dates in 2000 are either accounting software or financial forecasting software. Forecasting failures wouldn't necessarily be a crisis for an organization, and it's possible in some cases to temporarily "bandage" software by changing the end date in a program from sometime in 2000 to December 1999. And of course, an organization with some sense would have addressed the lookahead issue early in their Y2K projects and not left it for near the end.
"Year 2000 Problem Sightings"
Before February 1st, I didn't know one way or another if the Jo Anne Effect was going to cause noticeable problems that would end up being reported. After February 1st, when Wal-Mart and some other companies entered their fiscal year 2000 with no reported problems, I realized that what PNG had been saying on this forum was true...that problems in accounting software aren't nearly as noticeable to outsiders as problems in manufacturing or distribution would be.
We won't hear that much about Y2K-related manufacturing problems until January 2000. It was clear to me in February that we weren't going to hear much about fiscal year rollover problems in accounting software on April 1st and July 1st. Most people on this forum weren't expecting "show-stoppers" on April 1st and July 1st either, but yet the issue of few reported problems does continue to get raised from time to time here.
Anyone who'd like to learn more about what fiscal year rollovers in accounting software are and what they aren't, as well as find examples of lookahead problems that have occured so far can find quite a few relevant links on the following thread:
"Significance of States Fiscal Start"
I highly recommend that thread for those researching the Jo Anne Effect.
Almost all non-accounting software problems, PC BIOS chip and PC operating system problems, and embedded system/process control system problems are still ahead of us. Those are the ones with the potential of being "show-stoppers."
I might also add that the GPS rollover and 9/9/99 were each their own unique types of glitches and are not a subset of the "99" and "00" problem that we usually refer to as Y2K.
-- Linkmeister (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 14, 1999.
Most programs don't look ahead. Where I work, 5% of the system is fiscal year related and we worked on these projects first before anything else (because they were coming up quicker and were also very critical).
Currently, many of our programs are entering 2000 dates, but still far from all of them. We don't expect problems, but then again our hardware hasn't gone through the rollover. Not to mention all the PC's, servers and you name it.
-- Larry (email@example.com), November 14, 1999.
If there was a forecasting and planning system that covered three future years, it could be cut back to two years while it was being revised. The company could take a year to fix it and no one outside the company would have any idea that there was a problem.
-- Dave (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 14, 1999.