Re: Y2K ProDOS 8 (2.0.3)

["Charlie" <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com>]

"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message
K-qdnUTUh5DObZOiXTWJgQ@comcast.com">news:K-qdnUTUh5DObZOiXTWJgQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Charlie" <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com> wrote in message
> bel7pd01nou@enews2.newsguy.com">news:bel7pd01nou@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
> > 257d7207.0307101716.1ea07009@posting.google.com">news:257d7207.0307101716.1ea07009@posting.google.com...
> > > "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...
> > > > >
> > I believe all the file creation and mod fields (date and time) take up
> four
> > bytes which contain 5 unused bits (although they are in the field used for
> > time).  Using those 5 bits in conjunction with the 7 bits already
> allocated
> > would have allowed 4096 years.  Why this wasn't done originally is a
> mystery to
> > me.
> I would assume that it is because Apple didn't think anyone would still
> be using/caring about the Apple II computers for this long. ;-)

I suppose you are right, Bill, At least about Apple the company but it is hard
to understand why the people who actually did the programming would waste five
bits on every file that was ever created in ProDOS while at the same time
skimping on the number of bits used for the year field.

Charlie