Y2K and P8 TN #28 (Re: No-Slot Clock)

[dlyons@netcom.com (David A. Lyons)]

As the primary author of Apple II ProDOS 8 Technical Note #28 ("the technote")
from September 1990, I'd like to add my two cents.

The technote represents the only clear definition ever published by Apple
of a ProDOS 8 year number.  The technote is definitive.  Apple went to
some effort to change ProDOS 8, GS/OS, *and* even parts of Mac OS to
handle year numbers as specified in the technote (0 to 99 map to 1940
to 2039, with 100..127 not used).

In my opinion, any ProDOS disk containing a year number >99 is damaged
and in need of repair.


In article <20000103074119.12399.00000518@ng-cv1.aol.com>,
TEXAS II - AppleWorks <a2mg@aol.com> wrote:
>...
>I believe that when tech note #28 was published, it went the wrong way.
>(It was >also insulting and irreverent, but that's another story.) I
>believe it may be appropriate to buck the system at this point, but I'd
>like to see some further test results. Otherwise, it could possibly push
>the most important Apple II program ever released (ProSel) further into
>obscurity.
>
>Beverly Cadieux 
>The Apple II Mail Group - JOIN at http://members.aol.com/A2MG 

(By the way, irreverence was the consistent style of many of the Apple II
technotes, but they were not intended to be insulting.  On reading it now,
I assume the offensive part is the implication that anyone still using an
Apple II in 2000 is a "dedicated weirdo."  I don't remember writing that,
but at the time I believe it was an attempt to use humor to get through
to developers who might believe Y2K was too far in the future to matter.)

The best option would be for ProSel to conform to the nine-year-old
published standard.  The right time to disagree with the published standard
was nine years ago, not now.  Apple made the decision at that time, and it
is not reasonable to revisit it now.

--
Dave Lyons
Mr Tangent
<http://members.aol.com/davelyons>