Re: Y2K ProDOS 8 (2.0.3)

["John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.com>]

In article <3d7aa99a.0307090652.7cfbc835@posting.google.com>,
 willi@wilserv.com (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.
> 
> Willi

Thanks to everyone who responded. I think I was making a problem where 
none existed! The bogus dates crept in under an older version of ProDOS, 
and they've tagged along as I've moved from Apple II hardware to 
emulation with disk images. I zapped 'em with Glen Bredon's BlockWarden 
program, more for aesthetics than because anything was broken:-)

BTW, I found a nice collection of Technical Notes at

http://web.pdx.edu/~heiss/technotes/tn.0.html#toc

John
----
jmatthews at wright dot edu
www dot wright dot edu/~john.matthews/