Embedded Chip Failures - to mostly occur around July 99??? see chart

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

HI

Check out the 2nd graph down on this URL - http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/030599/gartner.html

It is from the Senate Hearings on March 5, 1999 from the Gartner Group..... It shows that about 55% of computer failures will occur July 99 to July 2000,,,,, AND THERE IS A HUGE SPIKE OF Embedded Chip Failures on the graph around July 1999......

Does anyone know why embedded systems and process controller failures (as shown on this graph), might failure this early ?????

-- Anonymous, April 24, 1999

Answers

Read the chart again. Look at the chart marks at the bottom, you will find that what you are mistaking for Jul 99 is actually Jan 2000

-- Anonymous, April 24, 1999

K Troyer Forgot to say thanks for the interesting link. It is very interesting to me. While it doesn't really consider the domino effect it seems to be fairly uniformly inaccurate in a standardized way. Actually very good. What all these charts say is that no one is ready, just some are less ready than others. Remember that 99.9% compliant is not enough.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 1999

Thanks,,,(It was very late last night when I found that web site!).... Here is the web site for the rest of the hearings...

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/030599/contents.html

-- Anonymous, April 24, 1999


The other thing to consider is that all failures within the failure "smear" will not be equal in impact.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 1999

xBob,

As someone working on he Y2K problem in the electric industry, I can assure you that 99.9% Y2K compliant is much more than enough. The vast majority of all Y2K problems could be ignored and no appreciable effects, in aggregate, would be noticed.

The only trick is to ensure that almost all of the small percantage of critical Y2k problems are at least Y2K ready.

bob

-- Anonymous, April 25, 1999



bob,

How can you possibly say:

"The only trick is to ensure that almost all of the small percantage of critical Y2k problems are at least Y2K ready."
and expect intelligent, thinking people at this forum blindly accept it after all we have discussed? Doesn't "critical systems" mean that the system is critical to the business?

-- Anonymous, April 26, 1999

To all the intelligent thinking people who read this forum and reporter, Just because you are an intelligent thinking person does not mean you know a damn thing about computers and more importantly computor testing. I too am working in the elcetricty Y2k testing world, and if I thought we were 99.9% compliant i would expect a huge bonus. and a critical system to buisness to an electricty company could be their biling system, but it won't stop you getting electricity. Graham

-- Anonymous, April 26, 1999

Does 100% compliancy |berhaupt exist ?

What about Murphy's law ?

-- Anonymous, April 27, 1999


Reporter,

My remark was primarily aimed at anyone running around with the mistaken idea that 99.9% Y2K Compliant is not enough. I believe it is a comment that has no relationship to what actually occurs in the real world (which is no where close to 100% perfect to start with, even if you look at only technical functionality), and it promotes a false sense of fear/concern/hopelessness that should be better applied elsewhere. Let me explain (also note that the poster made no reference limiting his comment to only critical systems, which you mistakenly added).

1) Y2K Compliant verses Y2K Ready - To most people, Y2K compliant means a 4 digit year with not a single date interpretation error. Y2K ready is obviously a lower standard. Maybe it is just a 2 digit year with a date window, or a device that only displays the date, but does it incorrectly. What ever way you call it, you can easily live with this lower standard.

2) Less than 100% - A device won't be ready or compliant, now what? Is all lost? Far from it. There are many temporary fixes that can be used for years. Let's take the easy one. You can roll the date back. Some people might even call this making the device ready, but it surely isn't 100% compliant. But in many cases this is all you need.

3) Let it fail - Of course you can't do this in all causes, and it wouldn't be prudent to do this in a lot of cases, but there are some where you can.

4) You fill in the blanks - There are many more possibilities. No silver bullets, but things you can do to get along with devices/systems that fail.

My comment was not meant so much as a y2k philosophy, so much as a comment against a statement that implies the effort to get through this Y2k issue can't be won.

bob

-- Anonymous, April 27, 1999


Graham, What percentage of the people were you work, live pay check to pay check, probably some who are making a fare amount of money. billing=payroll=workers=ability to produce electricity. I know this is getting away from the original chip question, but it does not make much difference to us why the electicity gets unreliable. Richard

-- Anonymous, April 28, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ