daryl just about all the packages that address y 2 k, offer a tsr program.
by that i mean all that cost money, not simple date checkers, but programs
that go through and look at all your fields.
i shall let you know later which one is recommended by the article i read on it
yesterday, but first i have to find it.
also its possible that norton professional works has a similar program, i shall
let you know about this as well.
seeing as how it has many things for a super bargain price of 99 dollars.
norton utilities, crash guard delux, norton anti virus 5, ghost, a 2000
program that got medioker review in the article, plus a note book program
designed to trouble shoot hardware problems with p c m c i a and docking
stations.
its bad review was due to the fact it did not examine data close enough, but
since the article symantec has updated it.
no idea if it has one of those tsr programs, but i can find out.
give me 2 days.
At 03:04 PM 2/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>you might be able to use:
>ftp://poehlman.clark.net/year2000.zip
>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Darrell Shandrow
>wrote:
>
>_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
>_
>
>--
>Hands-On-Technolog(eye)s
>touching the internet
>voice: 1-(301) 949-7599
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
>http://www.clark.net/pub/poehlman
>Dynamic solutions Inc.
>Best of service for your Small Business network Needs
>Http://www.dnsolutions.com
>
>
>-
>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
