Re: Y2K ProDOS 8 (2.0.3)

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

Willi Kusche wrote:

>Hi, y'all!
>
>obsbedia2@aol.com (Obsbedia2) wrote in message
>news:<20030709060226.00112.00000037@mb-m03.aol.com>...
>> << Runing ProODS 8 (2.0.3) under KEGS-OSX on  a PowerMac, I see that some 
>> files have a year of 103, while others display 03. The former show up in 
>> the catalog as <NO DATE>. Is there a optimal way to deal with this? >>
>> 
>> No.
>> Old clock card system from the time when memory was expensive.  Just the
>last
>> two digits (03) are present for the computer to read, so unless the program
>> you're running is set up for it, it will assume it's 1903.
>
>    See ProDOS Technical Note number 28, written by Dave Lyons on
>September 1990.  It discusses the layout of the ProDOS date field.
>
>    The year field is a 7 bit field.  So it can hold values from 0 to
>127.  The Technical Note says that values 100 to 127 are invalid.  It
>is my contention that they should be valid and should represent the
>years 2000 to 2027.
>
>    ProDOS versions 2.0.x will ensure that the year field is in the
>range 0 to 99 when reading the clock on a IIgs.  Earlier versions do
>not change the year field when reading the clock on a IIgs.

In many ways, it would have simplified things if Apple had made
this choice, since relatively date-unaware programs would at
least sort years properly.  ;-)

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!

Glen Bredon (ProSel) took the route you prefer, by issuing
a patched version of ProDOS (or just the clock driver?).

Bev Cadeaux (sp?) took the Apple-recommended route with
her updates to Appleworks and the ProSel utilities (though
the year sorting order was not addressed--only the correct
handling and preservation of dates beyond 1999).

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.

-michael

Check out amazing quality 8-bit Apple sound on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/