OT: re: A simple Y2K check

From: "Dell Perry" <Dellp@gwmail.plano.gov>

No cause for alarm.   We don't have to lose good garden time to this.

Fortunately, this is not the problem it appears to be. The short date style 
only controls how YOU see the date , not how it is used or passed to 
application software. Windows 95, Windows 98 and NT all store a full 
4 digit year for date processing functions. We have set PC's to  year end 
and beyond, and tested this as part of our Y2K test plan. NO Problem.

Try this; set your regional date to the mm-dd-yy short date style, then open 
a new Excel spreadsheet. Set the cell format for column A to date and select 
a type that represents m-d-y. Go to cell A1 and type some date as mm-dd-yy.
Press enter. Now put the cursor on that same cell and look in the input 
display line (next to the = sign just above the column/row grid) . Your date 
of, say, 01-26-95 in cell A displays as 01-26-1995. Put in a few more, 
in 2000 and 1900, randomly, then sort. They will sort correctly, as though 
you had entered the full 4 digits.The application actually 
created the 4 digit date from your 2 digit date, and the expanded date is 
what is behind the cell, not what you see in the cell.  This is similar to what
Windows does with the short date, and long date, styles you select in the 
Regional Settings on the Control Panel. It may say 01-15-00 but the machine 
sees the equivilent of 01-15-2000. 

I'd be more concerned for those who may still be using MSWorks, Windows3.X,
Office3/4, Access2, Excel5, Word6, DBase; programs using Visual
Basic 3/4, Windows3.x programs running in Windows 95/98/NT; old versions 
of Quicken, and Quickbooks, to name a few.They are NOT Y2K compliant 
when they use dates. 




--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

ONElist:  your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index