At 19:10 1996/11/29 -0600,"Charles R./DALLAS" wrote: > It really is very simple:...YOU ARE EITHER IN BUSINESS OR...YOU ARE >NOT!! If you cannot manage your finances to provide yourself with the tools >necessary to run it, then there is no need to blame "American Engineers" or >whatever. There is NO justification for penury,ignorance or SLOTH!! Yo Charles. Well we sure got your motor running hot! Great reply, you raise some important issues. If I may, I would first like to expound a bit on what I perceive constitutes a Cinderella, and then reply to your issues sequentially. This will mean a longish reply, but your comments deserve the time and space. Base Assumptions: 1. We live in a complex World 2. Not all people have the same standards or needs 3. There are many ways to kill the cat 4. There is room for everybody Question. Who is going to be affected by the Y2K bug? Answer. I think we can simply say : 1. those who need and use dates are affected. 2. those who do not use and have no need for dates are not affected. Yes, yes I hear you all saying "Oh but everyone on the planet will be affected". On a Global scale yes maybe, but in specific cases, not necessarily. Let me spin some scenarios. Scenario One. Auntie Dora is a great cook. Her fond nephew gave her an XT and dot matrix printer for her birthday so that she can type out her recipes and swap them at the Ladies League. Auntie Dora has never entered a date onto her system ever. She doesnt even use directories. When she switches her system on, the date defaults to 1980. Every file she has ever created has a date of 1980. She uses filenames like "strudel" and "cupcakes" and is as happy as a sandlark. When the fond nephew suggests that she types in the date at startup time, she looks at him strangely. Auntie Dora can use her system until the end of time. For our purposes, let us define Auntie Dora as a "Class 0 Y2k object". Scenario Two. There is a small two partner legal firm that I know. They have four clerks and an accountant. The firm started when the senior partner went out on her own and typed up her documents herself as the clients sat in front of her and answered the necessary questions. Conveyancing occurred in days and weeks, not months. Clients loved her. The service levels and speed of her process made her so successful and sought after she had to expand, take in a partner and gophers. All the machines in the office are Xt's or 286's using Wordperfect 5.1 and Canon Bubblejets. Each machine is set up with "standard" boilerplate forms in subject directories. There is no LAN. In the unlikely event of the girls wanting to share a new file, they swap floppies. There is not a Window in the place, except for in the walls. They use dates but in a secondary sort of way. They can use their systems until the end of time. They have no BIOS dependencies. The DATE command allows for YYYY/MM/DD entry from 1980 thru 2099. They will not have rollover problems on the 31st December 1999 because they will change their dates manually. Once. For our purposes, let us define this small legal firm as a "Class 1 Y2k object". Scenario Three. A one-person operation who manufactures Educational Aids for Schools. She uses her XT mainly for mailing labels using a small Dbase type shareware app. No dates. The occasional Lotus spreadsheet may however start to give her problems. She uses email, but without Windows. Non-technical. Loves her system. This is the first actual Cinderella type. There are uncertainties about SOME of the applications, which need to be resolved. She would be a "Class 2 Y2k object". Scenario Four. There is this real weirdo that I know. Packrats and Jackdaws could learn from this person. He hoards every computer program/gadget/oddball thing that has ever come his way. He has 4 apples, 1 HP, 2 Xt's, and a 20MB DX486 with 4GB harddrive. There is a ten foot by sixteen foot cupboard where he keeps literally thousands of Floppies, stiffies, tapes and a couple of hundred CD roms. He is new to CD rom so that is why the collection is still small. He tends to go for 600MB generic shareware titles. Things like Megabyte Monster, Night Owl etc abound. He currently uses MSDOS versions 3.2 thru 6.20. Doesn't like 6.22 because it bombs his Norton. Uses Win31, Win 95, OS/2 Warp 3, Linux 1.2.8 and 2.0, and is waiting for his NT 4 CD. Bitches about Internet bandwidth because it limits him to 60MB of download per night. Currently expert in Assembler, Cobol, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Snobol, Forth, etc. Links to IBM SNA, uses TCP/IP, HTTP, ec etc. Doesn't sleep. Insists that every program ever acquired be Y2k compliant. Attila the Hun was more reasonable. Apart from personality disorders, this Cinderella type has a problem with sheer volume. Just to keep track of his inventory is difficult. The parameters needed to supply the demands of his processing and incessant state of system change is staggering. This is "Class 3 Y2k object". Scenario Four. This company went into the equivalent of Chapter 11 i.e. placed under semi-judical management. . Purchased IBM 4341 and VM/SP 3.0 and VSE (2?) outright. Cancelled all software maintenance contracts. Runs high performance MRP package under native VM. Mantis, CICS, Wages, etc etc under VSE. I s now coming out of the red and performing well business wise. Major cash-flow and lending problem to migrate to latest release of Hardware and software for Y2k. Potential option to downsize to Server/390 technology, BUT proprietary MRP DB/DC drivers will not work under ESA. Specific CP mode modifications to VM nucleus. CP feature no longer available in latest ESA Y2K ready SCP. This guy is now painted into a corner. A major option must be to "zap" his existing "old" software to work reasonably into 2000. VM/SP is not the problem, that option has been taken care of already. But the old VSE/CICS is a real problem. This is a "Class 4 Y2k object", a high end Cinderella. These are all real world scenarios. Names and places have been changed to protect the guilty. What do these scenarios tend to have in common? 1. Machines and software tend to be fully amortised. 2. In theory, Maintenance contracts would be costly and spares difficult to find. In general this is not perceived by the users as an issue. They can usually pick up cheap replacements in the Wanted/For Sale ads or from some tame CompuGeek or sleazy backstreet outfit... 3. In the business scenarios the benefits accrue from keeping overheads low, and minimising Capital expenditures. 4. In general, there tends to be sufficient, even excess capacity. So the business can still grow in volume. So here are the limits to Cinderella. Users should classify their systems requirements in the context of the reality of their unique environment according to the following: Y2k Object Classes: Class 0 - no date requirements Class 1 - manageable date problem, existing solutions Class 2 - uncertainty with some applications Class 3 - uncertainty and massive volume Class 4 - Economic restraints to mainstream options. Non-standard unique approach needed Cinderella status start with Class 2. Anything above Class 4 is mainstream, and not a Cinderella candidate. Here endeth the lesson. Now to answer the specifics. > The question of retaining older Big Iron systems which may or may >not be able to be brought into the 21st Century is just now surfacing. As >many companies excessed older "iron" it found its way through Computer >Brokers to the less fortunate who then cobbled together what was >"affordable" to the user. What will happen when they finally discover their >problems or when the "real poor" (badly run and managed companies) literally >CAN'T spend the money to fix their inadequate programs is not clear picture. Very pertinent observation. > As for the PCs, I'm sure there are still 5 slot users of the older >IBM boxes out there. I have one still that was given Heart Surgery in 1988 >with an Intel Above Board 386 add on. It was taken off line with the arrival >of the WWW. There are still people running spreadsheets on Apple 2s or using >Amigas. I have no doubt there are TRS80s out there or someone is using the >Z-89 I gave away after paying $1,500 for it and writing 2 letters under >CP/M. So what? If you are running a business that makes it so difficult for >you to purchase even 486 systems complete for less than $1,000 you need to >consider whether you are in fact, in business at all!! The 286/386 >generation gave service for 8 years. Since the depreciation schedules >probably paid for much of the cost(don't dare hold me to that), sole >proprietors are merely deluding themselves and the IRS about the cost of >Computers. Yup. But many of these machines DON'T NEED FIXING! $1000 may not sound much to you. Consider the following: The purchasing power parity of exchange between South Africa and the USA is still loosely equivalent. e.g. a loaf of bread costing say $1 in the States costs loosely R1 in SA. In the "good old days" the exchange rate was $1.40 to R1. Today it is around $1 to R4. In effect this means that we are coughing up almost FIVE TIMES the real value to get the goods. I do not wish to go into all the political and Keynesian reasons for this farce but that is the stark fact. > In scripture it is written,"..the poor ye shall always have with >ye..'. Sadly, now the advanced must pay for their nigardliness when mission >critical systems fail. Huh? Since when do the "advanced" have to pay? It is us "poor" who have bought all this stuff at extortionate rates who are now trying to find the bucks to buy even more. Or am I missing some subtle point in your logic? > The maxims quoted below neglected to include >another:"Penny wise and pound foolish". Excellent. We shall add it to the list. >By not "upgrading" you now have the >equivalent of either a Model T or a horse and buggy with no horse. Do you realise how much a Model T is worth as a collectors item these days? Oh well, back to the rickshaw. >It really is very simple:...YOU ARE EITHER IN BUSINESS OR...YOU ARE >NOT!! If you cannot manage your finances to provide yourself with the tools >necessary to run it, then there is no need to blame "American Engineers" or >whatever. Valid point. But it really applies to mainstream, not Cinderella. I must confess that I stuck that little "American" thing in just to yank some chains. We all love Americans. Especially if they give us gum. But I cannot agree that the engineers who stuck us with this little problem are blameless (American or not). The impact of Y2K has been well understood since before 1976. In the 80's I know for a fact, because I was there and involved, the solutions for Y2K which were planned to coincide with the 4300 releases of VM/SP 1 and VSE/SP 1 were canned by Marketing at the last moment. People made decisions not to fix the Year 2000 problem, despite being paid good money for "maintaining" the software. They are not blameless. But they will not carry the can or pay the piper. That is left to you and I. > There is NO justification for penury,ignorance or SLOTH!! Well said! >It is far more expensive to maintain an older system from a labor point of view >than to move on to new solutions. There is now even excess/surplus of 1980s >machinery, so those with older systems have little excuse for "keeping Old >Betsy Running". I still think it's a tradeoff. You have to assess the risk and make a hardnosed business decision in your environment. There are no rules of thumb here. > It was bad management which usually results in bad enterprises. Let >Mr. Darwin have his way now. What are we saying here? You need competent management but you get monkeys? > If client/server or IntraNet solutions enable >your customers to prosper all well and good. If they are merely I.V. feeding >to keep them alive then perhaps the life support systems need to be yanked!! Also, they still can't give us the huge transaction volumes that CICS or IMS can achieve. > The mentality expressed by those who now choose to blame their self >induced obsolescence upon others is the same mentality that lead into the >Year 2000 problem itself. Again, maybe this is but another example of the >90s thinking that "..I'm not to blame for that, my pre-natal influences >made me this way..". Dont pick on me, I'm a baby-boomer. > By viewing IT/IS as a COST instead of as an integral part of the >PROCESS, users created their own mess. Good point. > Now they can fix it or wallow in >it..... but don't blame "American Engineers" for the slovenly acts of others. You are not going to forgive me for that "American" thing are you. OK, lets be politically correct and say "Engineers of undisclosed National Origin are not to blame for anything". I'm a "Software Engineer", whatever that means. But it does not give me a right to be terminally dumb. I have to take responsibility for my actions. Those "undisclosed" engineers did have a teensy little bitty involvement. (But of course we musn't blame them, after all they are "Engineers" and jolly good chaps.) > Unfortunately, the proper measure of the potential damage from the >failure of these systems has not been taken. Nor has the full impact of the >Mid Tier Companies who absolutely do not have the money to fix their systems >been evaluated. When that begins to surface there may well be panic in the >streets long before the Year 2000. Yup. Kenn Orr does a great presentation on just this. >Charles P. Reuben BS,MA Great reply Charles. It's a pleasure to chat to guys who put their mouthes where the money is. I just drool over that real estate on your home page. B>,)