Hi,
While my own computer is Y2K, my friend and I have an old laptop that we
use for amateur radio contesting logging that probably is not Y2K
compliant. It is an older 486. Where can I go to get that TSR program
that corrects for Y2K? Thanks.
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, bill cameron wrote:
> first of all currently most computers being maid today are y 2 k compliant.
> who should worry, many 486 machines.
> or earlier made pentiums that do not have the newest bios update.
> by that i mean a bios that is released in 96.
> if you have flashed to a bios that is capable of mmx you should be all right.
> remember that 10 percent of todays systems being maid are not y 2 k.
> so go and test it, think nick has a link to a program that can test it.
> more than likely sean is right, and jfw people have nothing to worry about.
> most of the reason companies provide information about y 2 k is for legal
> reasons.
> so the note that jfw is compliant is a legal thing, and no reason jfw needs to
> use dates at all.
> if by some chance your system is not y 2 k compliant it will not blow up.
> by the way if you use outlook 98 for makeing appointments and your system is
> not y 2 k compliant, that software program will automaticly insert the correct
> date.
> win 98 also tries to do something similar.
>
> still correcting the bios with a flash upgrade is the smart way.
> by the way if you have win 98, the auto update feature will install numerous y
> 2 k patches.
> norton professional system works also has a y 2 k program in it, have not yet
> tried it to test it with jfw.
>
> what if no bios upgrade exist?
> so bottom line is that if your system is not y 2 k, and you do not use any
> programs that are date dependant you are o k.
> if it is not y 2 k compliant and you do use programs that are date dependant
> you can get a simple tsr program that will load during boot that intercepts
> calls to find out what date it is.
> it then gives the application the correct date.
> this can fix your problems.
> of course it is also more apt to cause problems with jfw, should be used as
> last resort.
> now realize i am talking home p c here, if you use spread sheets for a small
> business get program designed to test data as well as system dates.
> such a program examines your system for 2 digit fields, and informs you of
> those, and lets the user make corrections.
>
>
> bill cameron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 09:13 PM 2/7/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >What is the web site to get this file to protect your computer from the year
> >2000? I need to know so I can get it on my computer. I have jfw 3.2.31 and
> >am running windows 95. will this patch take care of the problem?
> >Cathy and guide dog Tilly, Black Lab:
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Dan Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Sunday, February 07, 1999 7:01 AM
> >Subject: Re: y2k, bug or bunk?
> >
> >
> >>Well I don't know how this effects the JFW authorization key, but I know
> >>some computers with an older bios are effected, but I have done a
> >>similar experiment and found the same to be true. Also I think on Paul
> >>Henrich's web site or ftp site he has a windows 95 patch to make it Y2K
> >>compatible.
> >>I did not notice any change in the operation of JFW 3.2.19 during my
> >>experimenting.
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: David Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Date: Saturday, February 06, 1999 10:42 PM
> >>Subject: y2k, bug or bunk?
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hello all;
> >>>
> >>>I have heard that ignorance is bliss, so bear with me as I express my
> >>>ignorance. First, I admit there may be y2k problems in large network
> >>>situations.
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>
> >>-
> >>Visit the jfw ml web page: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
> >>
> >
> >-
> >Visit the jfw ml web page: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
>
>
> -
> Visit the jfw ml web page: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
>
-
Visit the jfw ml web page: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
