----------
Hi Thomas et al,
I fear that all senarios discussed are true, depending on which computer
system you are referring to.
I suspect that many large systems with large programming staffs are well
along the way to solutions, but not all. Supposedly, the DoD is only 30%
prepared.
On the other hand, smaller systems with smaller staffs may well be behind
the curve. They have to decide whether they have a problem, whether to try
to fix it or to switch to new software. All these tasks require a fair
amount of work and expense.
Those in the worst shape may be local agencies that have small staffs,
paid an outside firm to write some code many years ago and have accumulated
massive amounts of data like welfare data, property tax data, building
department data, etc. These people have no budget for upgrading to new
software and may not be able to use their old software. This could apply
to companies too but I would guess that every small town and local water,
fire, park and highway district may be in trouble.
The second problem area is with embedded processors. These small devices are
used in every piece of instrumentation, control system and monitoring
equipment manufactured in the last 20 years. They run the traffic lights,
monitor sewage plants, test for toxic spills, evaluate critically ill
patients as well as control a vast amount of automated production
machinery. Most people don't think of them as computers because they may
not have keyboards and monitors that people are used to. The computer
chips have even more chance of failure because they were designed for low
cost and had limited program space and limited data storage. There was a
strong incentive to take programming shortcuts which is where the problem
came from in the first place. In many cases, like in the military, no one
even knows where these devices are so no one is testing them to find
failure modes.
Now not all of these devices will fail. Many don't care what the date is and
don't try to keep track. The devices I worry most about are those that have
some kind of record of maintenance and won't work if they haven't been
periodicly recalibrated. They may think that maintenance in '1900' is not
good enough and may refuse to work. Real problems there.
An awful lot of the Y2K remedial work will involve simply replacing old
equipment that has been around a long time, huffing and puffing along,
getting the work done slowly but surely. It may get replaced with much
better, faster and more reliable equipment. This would be a net gain. So
clearly some of the Y2K work will not just be money down a rat hole but
will result in improved services. It is just that it is all coming at one
time and this in itself can cause disruptions.
Think of 2000 as a time of a great fire, destroying the old but offering a
chance for the new to spring forth.
.............. dennis paull
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Neil Rest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>>The Y2K problems have been accumulating for almost 50 years.
>>
>>All reasonable efforts to deal with particular situations began one to five
>>or more years ago.
>>>> Practically all the adding of staff is over. <<
>
>Thomas:
>
>That may well be so and if it is so, I would like others in the industry to
>comment. However there seem to be a lot of credible "experts" who are
>saying just the opposite. My goal is try and find out the truth! Given
>that a number of surveys have posted estimates of over 30% of the Companies
>surveyed have not even done a Y2K evaluation seems to indicate that either
>the surveys are lying or your assessment is incorrect. I don't care who is
>"right", I just want to know what the hell is going on! One of the primary
>indicators of a true problem, it would appear to me, is the simple proof of
>a shortage of Y2K personnel. There does not seem to be an acute shortage.
>Therefore, one can conclude two things: (a) There is no problem to fix and
>therefore we don't need anyone to fix it, or, (b) everyone is planning on
>fixing it but no one has started yet and therefore there is no demand for
>qualified personnel. The third alternative would be your assessment.
>Everyone got on top of the problem four or five years ago and it is
>basically fixed and we can stop worrying. Well, which is it? And how do we
>find out which possibility is the "true" one?
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Thomas Lunde
>>
>>
>>The Y2K problem is not the result of anything resembling a consipiracy; it
>>is the result of a mindset.
>>When the programmer told the boss in 1970 that this wouldn't work after
>>1999, the boss said, "It will have been replaced long before then!"
>>When the programmer told the boss in 1985 that this wouldn't work after
>>1999, the boss said, "We have to make a better showing this quarter than
>>last!"
>>(The programmer may not have had the opportunity to tell the boss in 1995,
>>since the department had been outsourced.)
>
>
>
