›               o=o=o=o=o=››              Y2K Concerns›› Member Joseph E.  Hicswa  sent  me  a› letter  recently, which I am going to› quote below, followed by my  response› to  him,  followed  by a postcard Joe› sent me and then a copy of  a  letter› he  received from his congressman and› -- finally -- a  note  that  he  then› sent  to  the   Federal   Office   of› Management  and  Budget.   Joe  feels› that  our  Atari  8-bits,  since they› aren't     generally    time-and-date› sensitive, could be used to help  the› government  solve   its   Y2K-related› problems.   As you read the material,› you'll   probably   gain   a  greater› appreciation for the Y2K dilemma  and› its potential effect on all of us.›› Although  I  admire Joe's persistence› in this belief, I wonder if he  isn't› being just a tad unrealistic.›› What  do  you  think?   I invite your› comments, questions,  reactions, etc.› If you wish to have them published in› the next newsletter, please say so in› your note.  Thanks, Ed.›› - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -›› FROM  A LETTER DATED 9/17/98 from Joe› to me, with copies to Ron Fetzer, the› JACG,  and  an  indication  of copies› sent   to  Governor  Whitman  of  New› Jersey, President Clinton, and "State› & Federal Legislators":›› "There's  been a lot of concern about› the year 2000  and  computers  having› problems going from December 31, 1999› to   January   1,   2000.    I  don't› understand why.›› I have an 8-bit computer, ATARI 130XE› that I picked up at a garage sale for› $20, got  a  public  domain  calendar› program  from my computer club in New› York, and there is no  problem  going› from December 31, 1999 or any earlier› date into January 1, 2000 or any date› thereafter.› › If  you  have  access  to  an   ATARI› computer  I'll  send  a  copy  of the› floppy disk for  your  programmer  to› check  and  learn how it is done.  It› is writin in ATARIBASIC language.›› The program was written by  an  Atari› user  in  Germany,  given to his club› (ABBUC) for distribution.  A copy was› sent to Ol' Hackers ATARI User Group,› Inc., (my address was  here  --  Ed.)› and translated into American Language› by member Ron Fetzer.  It is used  by› ATARI  computer  users  in  America &› World Wide.›› If your programmer is unable to patch› the  calendar into your programs, put› out a call  for  ATARI  programmers. › They  were  misers   with   RAM   and› efficiently    produced   outstanding› programs for (not  mega  or  gigabyte› but)  256K ATARI computers.  (Many PC› owners use emulators to LOAD and  RUN› ATARI programs.)"›› - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -›› Joe has made several points about the› benefits of  using  Atari  computers,› including  the talents of programmers› who wrote for them, but he  has  also› missed several points that I tried to› explain   to  him  in  the  following› letter:›› "Dear Joe,›› I read the letter that  you  sent  to› many  elected  officials with carbons› to me, Ron, and others unknown.  I've› sent Ron's on to him.  I ask that you› consider   giving  me  permission  to› include   both   your   letter   this› response  to  it  in  the  next OHAUG› newsletter.›› In your letter you state that  you've› heard  of  the  Y2K problem and don't› understand   it,  ostensibly  because› your 8-bit Atari doesn't suffer  from› that  problem.  I have to agree -- 8-› bit Ataris  were  designed  for  home› use,    with    an    emphasis     on› entertainment    and    simple   home› applications.    They   were    never› designed  to carry the time-and-date-› sensitive load placed on  businesses,› large and small, government agencies,› banks, universities, etc., nor  could› they  carry such a load even with the› most clever programming available  to› them today.  When time clock software› and,  indeed  hardware  (the  R-Time8› cartridge) came along for  the  Atari› 8-bits, the designers of these clocks› generally   had   the   foresight  to› include date  bits  that  encompassed› four  digits,  rather than two.  That› the   R-Time-8,   until    relatively› recently,  didn't handle Y2K properly› was a function of SpartaDos, not  the› hardware.   The problem was corrected› in later versions of SpartaDos.›› Our situation sort of reminds  me  of› the cartoon, prominently displayed in› the service department of a  new  car› dealer.   In  the  cartoon,  a man is› complaining   about   several   minor› problems  his  new car exhibits.  The› service   manager    dismisses    the› problems,  blaming  each  on  a   new› design  of  fuel  injection,   tires,› etc., and states, "They all do that."› The  frustrated  customer  tells  the› service manager that he  has  a  ten-› year-old  car home in his garage that› doesn't have  any of those  problems.› The   service   manager's   response,› rather automatic, is,  "Bring  it  in› and we'll fix it."›› However,  we  can't keep our heads in› the sand about Y2K, even  if  all  we› use  are  Ataris,  or C=64s, or Apple› ][s, or a whole host of older,  home-› type     computers     that     never› incorporated a time-clock at the base› hardware or OS level.  ›› The  world's  governments,  financial› structures and businesses  now depend› on other computers --  mainframes,  a› shrinking  but still viable number of› minis, and an ever-increasing  number› of  networked  PCs (running a variety› of   operating  systems)  and  (to  a› smaller extent) Macs.  All, or  most,› of  these  machines include clocks at› essentially three levels.›› At   the  hardware  level,  there  is› usually a BIOS that includes  a  CMOS› chip.   The  chip  keeps  a timeclock› running   constantly.   Many  of  the› early designs didn't allow  for  more› than two digits for the date.  If the› date   flips   over   to   "00,"  the› timeclock assumes that the date is in› the year 1900.  Hence, the day of the› week  would  also  be  incorrect  and› anything the computer attempts to  do› would be sensitive to that.  The cure› for the oldest of these computers  is› to  replace  them.   In  some  of the› newer ones, the  BIOS  chips  can  be› replaced  or  reprogrammed.   In  the› newer  ones, say from 1995 on up, the› hardware is not a problem.›› The  operating  system  is  a  second› source of trouble.  In PCs, these can› be  patched,  of  course,  since they› are, strictly speaking, software that› loads when the machine is turned on. › However, in  mainframes,  the  OS  is› often  hard-wired into the machine or› requires that the entire mainframe be› shut down while the new OS is loaded.› Bringing   a   mainframe  up  from  a› shutdown  involves  many  tests  that› have to be performed, since  the  new› OS  would have to interact with every› other piece of software that runs  on› that  machine.  The  mainframe  would› essentially  be  out  of  service for› many hours,  even  days.   Since  its› operation  may  affect  millions   of› people  and/or  accounts, you can see› that such a change would be  a  major› undertaking.  Not doing it would be a› disaster.  Just for example, take the› case  of the mainframe that's used to› handle   accounting   for  a  utility› company.   Overnight,   all   of  its› customers   would   owe  hundreds  of› thousands of dollars in unpaid  bills› since  January,  1900.  The mainframe› would   automatically   signal  other› mainframes  that  the  company  would› have to declare  bankruptcy,  and  --› compounding  this  by  the number  of› utilities in  the world  --  cause  a› major panic in the financial markets.› That's   just   one   industry.   Add› banking to the list and you begin  to› see  what's  happening.   So here's a› case where the cure for  the  disease› is  bad  enough,  but  not  curing it› would be infinitely worse.›› Now we get to  individual  pieces  of› software.  Some of the software I run› on my PC is time-dependent  and  uses› its  own   clock   devices   to   get› automatic  upgrades from the Web.  As› a result of testing  my  PC  for  Y2K› compliance, some of that software now› "thinks" that  it's  running  in  the› year   2000.    Hence,   when   those› programs dial out for upgrades,  they› don't  get  them  --  and  I'm just a› simple home user without an  internal› network to consider.›› The  problem  is  real,  it  has some› frightening scenarios attached to it,› and  even though it generates lots of› money for individuals  and  companies› that  are in business to alleviate it› for  other  businesses,  it  must  be› dealt with.›› It would be lovely to  say  that  our› Ataris jump in and come to the rescue› because we don't  seem  to  have  Y2K› problems  on  them.   However,   they› cannot  (at  least not yet) take over› the burden of computing on which  the› world now depends.›› I  hope  this  answers  some  of your› questions."›› - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -›› Joe, always the Atari loyalist,  sent› me  the  following post card.  In it,› he fails to understand that  many  of› the    mainframe   designs   actually› predate Atari  computers,  and  that,› once  again,  Atari  8-bits  were not› really designed to do what those  big› machines and their successors do:›› "Hi!  Receved your 9/23 letter.  YES!› you  may print  my  letters  re  Y2K.› They're Public Domian.›› Thanks  for  explaining the problem. › Now I understand it.  You  should  be› Whitehouse News Secretary.›› Had  designers  and  manufacturers of› mega-mainframes     availed     ATARI› technology  &  engineers,   the   Y2K› glitch could have been avoided.›› Regards  to  Ron  and  rest  of   the› membership."›› - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -›› The  next  piece  of correspondence I› got from Joe incuded a letter from  a› New    Jersey    Congressman.     The› congressman  briefly  described   the› problem  again.   he  then went on to› say the following:›› "You will be pleased  to  know  that,› with  my  support,  the  Senate   has› passed      the       Treasury-Postal› Appropriations  bill which criticizes› the   Clinton   Administration    for› underestimating  the cost of computer› conversion and requires the Office of› Management  and  Budget  to report to› Congress four times per year  on  the› Administration's  progress.   Current› estimates    place    the   cost   of› reprogramming computers in  the  U.S.› at almost $300 billion, and the costs› are expected to increase by 20 to  50› percent  per year.  Please be assured› that I will continue to  monitor  the› federal   government's   efforts   to› address the computer problem.›› Again, thank you for alerting  me  to› your  concerns.   Should   you   have› ideals  you  would  like to share wit› the Clinton Administration,  I  would› suggest  contacting  the  Office   of› Management  and Budget, Old Executive› Office   Building,   Washington,   DC› 20503.  Please stay in touch."›› - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -›› Well,  the  congressman  didn't  even› mention  the  name,  "Atari"  in  his› letter.  He did show that Congress is› interested     in     forcing     the› administration  to keep them informed› of     whatever     progress      the› administration   is   making   toward› solving the Y2K problem.   It's  nice› to  know that Congress wants updates,› and will spend  money  to  get  those› updates,  even  if the preparation of› such   updates  may  very  well  work› against the timely  solution  of  the› problem.   But  then, Joe sent a note› to   the  OMB,  explaining  that  the› congressman suggested that he  do  so› if  he had any concrete ideas.  Joe's› note to OMB continues:›› "My  computer  is  an  ATARI  8-bit. › While unable to alter ROM, I can copy› ROM-moduels  into  RAM, alter module-› copy, then direct data base  &  other› programs  to  that address instead of› going  to  ROM  for  instructions  or› data.›› JERSEY ATARI  COMPUTER  GROUP  &  OL'› HACKERS  ATARI USERS GROUP were asked› to post your address so  members  and› friends  can  submit  suggestions  to› you."›› - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -›› Is  there a point to this rather long› exchange   of   correspondence?     I› believe  there  is.   We  are  a user› group   dedicated  primarily  to  the› survival  of  a  long-obsoleted  home› computer.    It  has  some  wonderful› attributes.    Some   of  us  use  it› exclusively.  To those users, I  must› issue  a  reminder.    Our   machines› perform many and varied tasks for us.› However, we must not  lose  sight  of› two realities.  The first is that our› machines are in  the  minority,  that› they  weren't  designed to handle the› kinds   of   time-and-date  sensitive› software and files that are prevalent› today  -- files and programs on which› all of our major institutions depend.› The  second  reality is that although› we may use our Ataris  in  isolation,› we  cannot  expect  them to shield us› from the  Y2K  problem,  nor  can  we› expect  Atari technology to solve the› Y2K problem.›› Those of us  who  have  two  or  more› platforms  at home or use a different› platform outside  of  our  homes  may› have a more realistic view of the Y2K› problem.  But they also share a great› advantage  with  the  exclusive 8-bit› users.  They can, when the  pressures› of  Y2K  and  other  computer-related› problems  close in on them, escape to› the relative serenity of a  Y2K-less,› Atari 8-bit world.››               o=o=o=o=o=›››