›               o=o=o=o=o=››              Y2K Revisited›› It seems as if Y2K, and reactions  to› it,  won't  go  away.  I've seen joke› after joke as well as serious comment› after  serious  comment about the Y2K› problem in the time between the  last› issue and this writing.  Some of what› has been written amounts to hysteria.› Although  my  comments  to Joe Hicswa› weren't,  I  believe,  hysterical  in› nature, it seems that I may have been› a little too alarmist on some points.› Joe sent me a letter in which he said› that  we're  gaining  publicity   for› Atari user groups, and he thanked Tom› Andrews and me for the new newsletter› format.   He  also  enclosed a letter› from A  Mr.  Thomas  J.  Pazel.   Mr.› Pazel,  who  might have been a former› JACG member, describes himself  as  a› computer  professional  for  the past› nineteen years with current mainframe› experience.     I    bow    to   that› experience, since my  rather  limited› mainframe  experience  goes back many› years.  Also, some  of  what  I  said› about  mainframes and the Y2K problem› stemmed   from   other  writings  and› comments that I now see  as  somewhat› hysterical.›› Mr.  Pazel  states  that  the general› case with mainframes is that their OS› doesn't  cause a Y2K issue.  He feels› that those mainframes  (probably  the› majority in operation today) that run› IBM's MVS  OS  have  the  ability  to› handle  four digit years and have had› it   for   at    least   ten   years.› Mainframes,  as Mr. Pazel also points› out, can  now  go  through  power  on› reset  and  initial  program  load in› minutes.  Major upgrades can be  done› in a couple of hours.  If such is the› case, and I believe Mr. Pazel when he› says  it  is,  there   is   no   more› incentive  for organizations to avoid› fixing    their    mainframe's    Y2K› problems, if any such problems exist.› Yes,  programmers  might  have  to be› hired   for   big   bucks.   But  the› alternatives can cause major problems› for those organizations.›› Mr.  Pazel  also criticizes my letter› to   Joe  Hicswa,  most  justifiably,› where I imply  that  a  mainframe  in› Organization  A  may   give   another› mainframe  in Organization B a report› that Organization A is  about  to  go› bankrupt  as  a   result   of   false› information generated in Organization› A due to a Y2K problem.   He  states,› correctly,  that  human  intervention› should  prevent such a situation from› happening.    Hopefully,  responsible› people will step  in  where  this  is› necessary.    I'm   reminded   of   a› situation   many   years   ago.   Our› military had built a series of  radar› installations  (the  DEW   Line)   to› provide  a  distant   early   warning› against  missle attacks by the former› Soviet Union.  One day, a blip showed› up  on the radar, quickly followed by› more and still more!   It  looked  as› though  the  Soviets  were   throwing› their entire arsenal at us, and then,› MANY  TIMES  their  entire  arsenal! › When   the   officers  watching  this› phenomenon finally realized that  the› Soviets  couldn't  possibly  have  so› many  missles and began to doubt that› such   an  attack  was  realy  taking› place, the resulting alert was called› off.   It was discovered that the DEW› system was  responding  to  the  moon› coming  over  the  horizon,  an event› against   which   it   hadn't    been› programmed!   In   short,   we   need› responsible  people  in   responsible› positions  who  will  intervene  when› something that appears dire is really› the result of a Y2K problem.  As  Mr.› Pazel  says,  "My  point here is that› most (if not all) companies are aware› of  their Y2K exposures and will have› steps   in   place   to   handle  any› unforseen problems.  Those that don't› probably don't have much of a future,› anyway."›› Mr. Pazel  does,  however,  recognize› that there are systems out there with› Y2K   problems.    Those  problematic› systems   are    not    limited    to› mainframes.   They  may  also include› PCs   and  other  computers  and  the› software  that  runs  on  them.   One› illustration was brought home  to  me› during  a  coffee  break  at our last› OHAUG meeting.  Some of the guys were› discussing    Timewise,    a    time-› management program Atari put out some› years  ago.   Timewise  has   a   Y2K› problem.  However, if  the  only  one› dependent  on  the  output   of   the› program  is the owner of the program,› that owner needs to know that  he/she› can substitute the year 1972 for 2000› and the program  will work  properly.› Problem  solved  at the one-operator,› one-dependent level.   Or,  take  the› case  of  electric  typewriters   (or› other  appliances,  for  that matter)› with   imbedded    electronics    for› maintaining  time  and   date.    Joe› Hicswa had such a typewriter and sent› it back to the factory because it had› a  Y2K  problem.   Joe didn't make it› clear in his post card to me  whether› the  typewriter  was  recalled by its› manufacturer, or  he  discovered  the› problem  and sent it back.  In either› case, the manufacturer  is  going  to› remedy  the  situation.  I wonder how› much brand loyalty that  manufacturer› could  muster  if  it were publicized› that they refused to remedy such  Y2K› problems in their equipment!›› You'd  have to be living in a cave on› a mountaintop (with no radio,  no  TV› and  no  laptop) to claim that you're› not   aware    of   Y2K  these  days.› Everybody has probably heard and seen› the  same jokes and dire reports that› I've seen.  Acting responsibly to fix› the    problem   --   or   at   least› maintaining   a  calm  demeanor  when› faced   with   the  results  of  that› problem not getting fixed elsewhere -› -      should      be      everyone's› responsibility.   Closer to our Atari› 8-bit hearts, for those of us who use› SpartaDos  and  an RTime-8 cartridge,› for example, should be a  willingness› to  upgrade  from  version  3.2d   to› 3.2g.›› Thanks,  Joe  Hicswa,  and  thanks to› Thomas Pazel for pointing out what  I› had overstated.  I invite comment, as› usual, on this  or  any  other  topic› raised in this newsletter.›› Alan Sharkis› Editor››               o=o=o=o=o=››››