[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Y2K?
Bryan Parkoff wrote:
<aiiadict@gmail.com> wrote in message
1140121627.387587.194750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com">news:1140121627.387587.194750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Didn't you know that on New Years eve 2039,
we're having an Apple II fairwell party
We're going to have to live through world war III
and it's aftermath..
Since you've planned the party already, I'll add some
code to my robot's software. January 1st, 2039, he
will self destruct.
Rich
Please remember -- Apple II family always survive for another century
since today. If it is Y2K issue which it may have 8 bit to limit up to
2039AD, we should be able to extend to 16 bits and set limit to thousand of
years from now.
We will have to reprogram or recode Apple IIgs' Control Panel and other
software from scratch when we are supposed to reinvent new wheel.
Of course, that solution is not available in a way that is compatible
with existing software. *That's* the issue.
The way to extend the date representation into the future is simply to
drop off the past, as Apple did in proposing moving the 2-digit year
window from 1900-1999 to 1940-2039. The next logical step would be
to move the window to, say, 1970-2069, since there are no Apple II
files created earlier than 1970, and you wouldn't want to mess up
file dates if you could avoid it. (A pragmatic argument could be
used to push the window to 1980-2079, but why not allow a bit of
"pre-history"?)
Applications that represent dates, usually with only the 1900-1999
window, are problematic if their dates cross the 2000 boundary, but
they are already (in 2006) quite usable with a 2000-2099 window,
assuming that nothing earlier than 2000 needs to be represented.
New applications, of course, should use a larger year field and
put off these problems until (much) later.
-michael
Music synthesis for 8-bit Apple II's!
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it is seriously underused."
- References:
- Y2K?
- From: "Chuck Nelson" <nelsoncl@neo.rr.com>
- Re: Y2K?
- From: dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson)
- Re: Y2K?
- From: "Mew" <mew24e@hotmail.com>
- Re: Y2K?
- From: "PZ" <skierpaul@yahoo.com>
- Re: Y2K?
- Re: Y2K?
- From: "Bryan Parkoff" <none@nospam.net>