Re: Y2K ProDOS 8 (2.0.3)

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

"Michael Pender" <mpender@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<x49Pa.71588$n%5.56799@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
> 20030710024051.00221.00000126@mb-m03.aol.com">news:20030710024051.00221.00000126@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >
> > But Apple chose to go a different route, with year values from
> > 40-99 meaning 1940-1999 and years from 00-39 meaning
> > 2000-2039.  Relatively little software actually implements
> > this fold point, but having the definition out there certainly
> > biases the argument!
> >
>  ...snip...
> >
> > If a spate of new software or updates arrive for the Apple II,
> > this issue will need to be resolved.  Certainly, the "official"
> > opinion of Apple must weigh heavily in this resolution.
> 
> Actually, I think we should come up with something better than either of
> these approaches or we'll be having the same discussion in 36 years.  ;-)

Since the space allocated in directory structures will not allow more
than 7 bits for the year information, it is unlikely that this issue
can be eliminated as a problem.  A rolling fold-over date is a reasonable
adaptation to the problem, and having a problem twice a century seems
quite reasonable to me.  The Apple II community is not the Social
Security Administration.  ;-)

-michael