¢ 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=¢¢¢
