Re: Y2K Bug

2002-05-28 Thread D De Villiers
Kenrick Chin, The Y2K bug rears its ugly head. TimGetSeconds returns a 32-bit unsigned integer reflecting the number of seconds since Jan 01, 1904. According to my calculations this is going to overflow on approx. 2040 Feb 06 at 6:28:18. I may not be around to witness this but there might

Re: Y2K Bug

2002-05-28 Thread Javier Romero
Subject: Re: Y2K Bug Kenrick Chin, The Y2K bug rears its ugly head. TimGetSeconds returns a 32-bit unsigned integer reflecting the number of seconds since Jan 01, 1904. According to my calculations this is going to overflow on approx. 2040 Feb 06 at 6:28:18. I may not be around to witness

Re: Y2K Bug

2002-05-28 Thread Dave Lippincott
Technically its not a Y2K bug. Its a Y2032 bug. Y2K was a problem because, as you may remember, some software could not distinguish '00 as being 1900 or 2000. Palm OS not being able to represent dates past 2032 is completely different. We're just running out of bits in our unsigned integers

Y2K Bug

2002-05-27 Thread Kenrick Chin
The Y2K bug rears its ugly head. TimGetSeconds returns a 32-bit unsigned integer reflecting the number of seconds since Jan 01, 1904. According to my calculations this is going to overflow on approx. 2040 Feb 06 at 6:28:18. I may not be around to witness this but there might be a lot of unhappy

Re: Y2K Bug

2002-05-27 Thread Joe Malone
--- Kenrick Chin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Y2K bug rears its ugly head. TimGetSeconds returns a 32-bit unsigned integer reflecting the number of seconds since Jan 01, 1904. According to my calculations this is going to overflow on approx. 2040 Feb 06 at 6:28:18. I may not be around

Re: Y2K Bug

2002-05-27 Thread Paul Nevai
The Y2K bug rears its ugly head. TimGetSeconds returns a 32-bit unsigned integer reflecting the number of seconds since Jan 01, 1904. According to my calculations this is going to overflow on approx. 2040 Feb 06 at 6:28:18. I may not be around to witness this but there might be a lot