Great Web Site Y2K Date Bug : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Check it out, my browser (IE5) has the web site saying that it is Friday Jan 2 2098, your browser may yield different results, but that is what Y2K is all about, Computers can not all agree on what the date (or data) is.

-- Helium (, January 02, 2000


I have ie5 and it shows 192000 for me

-- Johnny (, January 02, 2000.

Sunday, January 2, 19100 - 12:52AM

Netscape 4.7 Notice that the time is AM.

-- cmd0903 (, January 02, 2000.

192000 on Netscape 4.03.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.

Very Interesting. My IE5 reads the date as Sunday, January 2, 192000, whereas my Netscape 4.7 reads it as Sunday, January 2, 19100.

-- PBDB (, January 02, 2000.

Win 95, IE 4.0 displaying 192000.

-- wha? (, January 02, 2000.

IE 3.02 CRASHED , tryed it twice, never saw a date come up. Had to reboot the PC. This sucks.

-- ERROR (nothingc@ngorong.gorong.gorong), January 02, 2000.

Well, I have AOL browser {IE4.01 with the tweaks they added last week] on a Mac. I got 192000 and about 1 1/2 pages of Java errors listed in a seperate window.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 02, 2000.

This is not a Y2K problem - it is a javasript problem. The programmer looks like he cut and pasted a very simple script which instead of checking the date adds numbers to approximate the date. Human error and sloppy programming - not Y2K anything.

If the script did actually queary the computer - your computer by the way - it would return the correct date in ANY computer running any of the browsers listed here - UNLESS you manually screwed up the date on your own computer.

-- Y2Kicks (, January 02, 2000.


So what!

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 02, 2000.

Y2Kicks how do you explain two different dates read by the same computer(which does have the correct date)but using two different programs?

-- PBDB (, January 02, 2000.

Y2K Kicks

Don't think so, I tried changing the date on my computer to 99 and 1998, the Web page gave all sorts of interesting results. It appears that something in the page, Java or Javascript, does look at the local computer date and then reports the date. Come to think of it, why would you use the Local Computer Date to put up the date on your World Wide Web Site, wouldn't it make more sense to use the date on the web page server so you were sure to get it right?

That is assuming that the web page server is compliant. LOl;)

Y2K, Its every day now!

-- Helium (, January 02, 2000.

Monday, January 3, 19100 - 6:26PM

Netscape 4.7 running on Linux 6.2

-- merville (, January 02, 2000.

There is a JAVA function which returns the date as a number beyond 1900. If all is working right, it returns 98 for 1998, 99 for 1999, and 100 for 2000.

If you write your code correctly, you get the value of this function, and then add 1900 to get the correct year (1998, 1999, 2000). If you write the code so you just place "19" in front of the function result, you count the years 1998, 1999, and then 19100. Of course the 19100 might be truncated to 4 digits, so you might end up with 1910 or 9100.

Now comes the fun part. Microsoft Internet Explorer has a bug, as reported on this site. It returns the full 4 digits 2000 for this JAVA function. It counts: 98, 99, 2000. So if you write code correctly, (1900+2000) you get 3900 for the year. If you write code incorrectly, you get 192000 for the year. If that gets truncated to 4 digits, you could get 1920 or 2000. The last being the result of 2 unbelieveable errors yielding the correct result!

By the way. Microsoft denies there is a bug. They request that everyone change their HTML and Java so that it works under IE. An interesting approach.

I understand that the Windows 3.1 file manager likes to display "2000" as :0.

Someone should collect a comprehensive list of all the possible variations on the year 2000.

-- David Holladay (, January 02, 2000.


That is a great idea. Does anyone have the time? Volunteers?

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 02, 2000.

On a Mac. Netscape 4.03 and 3.01 both gave 192000 but without the long list of Java errors. I guess that MS software is just set-up to list errors. I have more Browsers back to Netscape 1.0 [resolution; clean up the hard disc].

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 02, 2000.

I must be dumber than dirt--------how do I find these dates? The far bottom right of my screen says 2:06 pm and when I put the arrow there it says Jan 2, 2000. I use Explorer to get on the net and the top of that page just says January 2. Where should I be checking? Pam

-- Pamela (, January 02, 2000.


The date we are talking about is on the upper right hand corner of the page, on the grey bar that goes across the screen.

It is in black letters and has an updating clock.

-- Helium (, January 02, 2000.


-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@AOL.COM), January 02, 2000.

IE5 displays Sunday, January 2, 192000 - 3:31:49PM

-- Dian (, January 02, 2000.

Netscape - 19100

Explorer - 192000

(newest versions)

Does this mean we're going to need a damn patch for our browsers now?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.


This is not a Y2K problem - it is a javasript problem. The programmer looks like he cut and pasted a very simple script which instead of checking the date adds numbers to approximate the date. Human error and sloppy programming - not Y2K anything.

I'm new here... so I may be missing the point, but isn't the main cause of the 'y2k problem' sloppy programming? It doesn't make sense to me that because the programmer screwed up something relating to dates that it isn't a Y2k problem... that is what the Y2k problem is all about, programmers screwing up date functions. Just my $.02.

Back to lurking...

-- I Don't (, January 02, 2000.

Not a Y2K problem?

Bwahahaahaaaahahaah! What an idiot!

At the stroke of midnight on Dec. 31 1999, the year chages to 19100, and he says it's not a Y2K problem. LOL!!!

Typical Polly denial. They refuse to admit that the Y2K bug could even exist. "Oooooh, the Satan Y2K, it can't be real, it's all made up by doomers!"

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

As I said, I'm getting two different dates on two different browsers.

That seems to indicate that at least one of these browsers is going to need some kind of patch or upgrade, unless they can somehow right the code in a way that works correctly for both browsers.

Any coders out there, is that possible?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Coder? Well, I've written my share of code, which is why I made the point above. Here is the code they use for the clock on that site: In the red below, he is doing the date adding and subtracting wrong, because he is appending whatever the browser is returning as getYear (). In most cases, the browsers are returning 2000, and he is sticking 19 in front of it... again, this IS, by definition, a Y2k bug in that the programmer wrote bad code... he wasn't planning for the year 2000 and wrote his code so that it would break when the new year rolled around. Lurker... back to lurking (again). function tick() {
var strDay, strMonth, intDate, intYear;
var hours, minutes, seconds, ap;
var today;

today = new Date();

strDay = DaysArray[today.getDay()]+", ";
strMonth = MonthsArray[today.getMonth()]+" ";
intDate= today.getDate()+", ";
intYear = today.getYear();
if (intYear < 99) {
intYear = "20"+intYear+" - ";
else {
intYear = "19"+intYear+" - ";
hours = today.getHours();
minutes = today.getMinutes();
seconds = today.getSeconds();
if (hours > 12) {
hours = hours - 12;
ap = "PM";
else { ap = "AM"; }
hours = hours + ":"
if (minutes < 10) { minutes = "0"+minutes; }
seconds = ((seconds < 10) ? ":0" : ":") + seconds;

timeString = "<font face=verdana,arial,helvetica size=1><b>";
timeString += strDay+strMonth+intDate+intYear;
timeString += hours+minutes;

-- I Dont (, January 02, 2000.

Thanks, yeah that looks to be some kind of half-assed solution he is using, but I still don't see how it can be producing different dates in different browsers. When properly corrected, will the date be correct in both browsers?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ