On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Michael Hutchens wrote: > So I'm curious now -- you can all tell that I'm a dilettante programmer (in > my other life I'm about to be a doctor). Why can the palmOS only handle a > 127 year span when only a few bits more could have obviated the whole > problem? Seems penny-wise and pound-foolish. Do you really think these vintage palms will be around in 2030? Personally, I think all existing palms will be extinct in 5-6 years and replaced by a newer vintage. > > ---------------------- > Michael Hutchens > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- Shoot-to-Win Protect the 2nd Amendment ----------------------------------------------------
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Marcel Guldemond
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Alan Pinstein
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Steve Patt
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Tom Zerucha
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael Hutchens
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? krollin
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael S. Davis
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? krollin
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Laurence Lundblade
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Sudipta Ghose
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Mark Nudelman
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael Yam
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
