Hi all,
This message surprised me somewhat since only last week Dan Clarke
suggested we were all OK.
It seems that HJ may only just be waking up to the Y2K thing and keys
because of what we have been asking, so we need to get it clear.
I for one have only ever had one key (disk of keys) and that was when I
first purchased JAWS 2 soon after it came out. I am thinking that I am one
of those that need an upgrade.
I have to rack my brains as to whether I'd had any more keys . . ..
It's a pity HJ don't seem to have a list of those needing replacements.
I'd best get checking this out, I guess.
--
Carol Pearson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:54 12/02/99 -0500, Test Manager wrote:
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Test Manager)
>
>
>I just wanted to let those concerned with the potential Y2K compatibility
>problem know that we are currently testing Jaws and MAGic for Y2K
>Compliance. The only significant problem we have found to date is with an
>old version of the everlock authorization key. If you purchased JFW 2.0 and
>have never received a new authorization key disk you may have this old
>version of everlock. In this case you need to contact Henter Joyce.
>
>Just for your information we perform a bank of tests on our software to
>assure Y2K compliance. These include: Date set and hold with JFW running
>and not running, Basic date rollover again with JFW running and not running
>and with the system powered on and off at the time of rollover. We are also
>testing the various timed demos and authorization key software packages.
>
>An important point to make is that before you try to test any software for
>Y2K compliance you need to thoroughly test your system, both hardware and
>software (such as the operating system and any other background software) to
>make sure that they are fully Y2K compliant.
>
>If you have a specific Y2K compliance test that any Henter Joyce product
>fails please let me know so I may reproduce the test and analyze the
>results.
>
>Test Manager
>Henter-Joyce Inc.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lisle, Teddy (DMS)
>> (CHRDMS1)
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 3:24 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: RE: y2k, bug or bunk?
>>
>>
>> From: "Lisle, Teddy (DMS) (CHRDMS1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Testing was a good idea, though. After all, Eloquence shouldn't have
>> been time/date dependent, and look what happened there.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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
