don't know if rick will allow this... but i think that it is indicative of what is going on out there... all across the board.

this was posted to csy2k 10 minutes ago... i haven't verified it but it doesn't look good.

Microsoft continues to lose the war for Y2K compliance. There are now 393 Microsoft applications that have had Y2K status changes since December 1. This includes some applications that recently finished testing. Of these 393 applications:

53 are rated compliant, 11 cannot be made compliant, 159 need updates that aren't available yet, 76 need new updates that are available, 4 don't process dates, 4 are considered compliant "with acceptable deviations", and 76 have changed status from compliant to "under revision".

Among the products which require updates that aren't available yet, are Excel 95, Excel 97, Excel 2000, and all versions of Office 2000.

Windows Media Player 6.1 used to be listed as compliant, now it's "under revision". This is a component of all recent versions of Internet Explorer.

There is also a new Y2K update for Windows NT that has been released in the last few days.

This is as of 10:00 am today,12/9/1999. With the recent pace of Microsoft products falling off their "compliant" list, you will likely find a different number if you go to:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/year2k/product/product.asp and do a search.

There are another 34 products on the "yet to be tested" list, some of which used to listed as Y2K compliant.

Bottom line: if you use Microsoft software on your PC or server, you are probably not Y2K compliant, even if you thought you were and verified that with Microsoft as recently as 10 days ago.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 1999

Answers

Marianne,

I think we may be sunk. I consider myself pretty competent with MS products (normally I have been the office computer guru), seeing as I have worked with them for nearly 20 years now, but after checking this web site and trying to decipher the indecipherable, I am not sure whether my computer and software will run properly in y2k or not. Wow, talk about legalese being confusing - Microsoft has been taking lessons from the Lawyers and politicians.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 1999

PD, hello. An excellent question! I hope you won't mind my copying your inquiry over to CNN's Year 2000 Bug forum. I will use only your initials, and the reference to this location. I try always to be careful NOT to include a person's email address, since I much value discretion. However, I might mention here that I was careless a couple days ago when I copied over Marianne's 12/09 "sign of the times" post. For which I apologize to you, Marianne. By the time I realized it, it was too late. I am sorry for that, won't happen again.

Incidentally, Rick - if there is any problem with verbatim reproductions of messages posted on your forum, PLEASE email me to let me know. I value your forum here, and all participants, too much to intentionally commit any indelicacies.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 1999

Jim - I'm going to ask the other forum regulars to chime in here re: copying to other BBoards. My incliniation is that proper protocol is to ask both the forum maintainer and the person who posted the question you wish to crosspost.

I have recommended in the past to people who have asked this question that they paraphrase the subject of the posting, then provide a link back to the energyland.net website. Anyone that's truly interested in the subject / topic from the other board will request a password and contribute to the discussion. Most importantly, this method allows for continuity of the topic, and the responses don't get fragmented.

There could be copypright issues, as well, if an individual poster (or even myself) really wanted to get their panties in a bunch.

So again, forum regulars, what say ye?

-- Anonymous, December 12, 1999

marianne, I should thank you for your original message here. It was due to that, that I (computer simpleton that I am) decided to download, install, & run Microsoft Year 2000 Product Analyzer in my pc. According to the report I received and filed and printed, all 21 of my MS programs are compliant (hopefully true). I'd already completed all MS Critical and Recommended Updates, but it was nice to see the Analyzer's results, too. Being an unsophisticated honyok, I was initially wary and confused about the download procedure, until a poster on another BBoard (weeeel...someone on CNN's Yr 2000 Bug) assisted me. But it was your message that prompted me to do it...thanks.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 1999

jim...

that was my intention when i posted... i had hoped to reach as many people as i possibly could. the original post came from csy2k. i also posted it to tb2000.

i have no problem with your cross post as i was trying to reach as many people as i possibly could.

i will say this however; from what i understand by reading other posts by the man who originally posted that data... i feel that frequent visits to microsofts site are in order.

it appears that the data changes quite frequently as they keep retracting their original positions that all is well in microsoft land.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001y8R

-- Anonymous, December 13, 1999