Re: three questions about //e

["william strutts" <wrstrutts1@home.com>]

Microsoft used 12/31/1899 in Windows 3.1.  They used a
counter from this date. If you set the date to 0, that is
what you will get (0/0/00).  Using 1/1, will get you 1/1/1900.
They called this serial dates and I believe it is valued in seconds
so that the current date/time is the number of seconds from 1/1/1900.
That is why Windows 3.1 was not Y2K.  Windows 95 and beyond
support up to 12/31/2099 or something like that.  The funny
thing is that only certain apps really were affected by this
quirk.  Access 2.0 was one of them.  It converted the date
into a serial date when you entered it into a date field and
I believe it choped the century off in some its date conversion
algorithyms.  The cure was to change a date field to a text field.


--
--
William R. Strutts - wrstrutts1@home.com - Whatever!

C'est moi!  http://www.facelink.com/wrstrutts

Just hacking away...
"Linards Ticmanis" <ticmanis@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
3B21A246.5F768BC@coli.uni-sb.de">news:3B21A246.5F768BC@coli.uni-sb.de...
> David Empson wrote:
>
> > (The clock chip actually contains a 32-bit second counter, which is
> > divided down by the system software to produce a calendar date.  I don't
> > know what "epoch" is used by the IIgs, but given the evidence it is
> > probably 1/1/1940.)
>
> That would be odd, as most OS manufacturers chose 1 January of the
> year they started implementing.
>
> --
>
> Linards Ticmanis
>
>  The Master said, "The business of laying on the colors follows the
> preparation of the plain ground."