RE: IBM Y2K Readiness

Interesting.  Then according to IBM's own rules, that they also force
down on their business partners, they should no longer be selling
Fax/400 as it is not yet Y2K ready.   :-(



Neil Palmer                                AS/400~~~~~      
NxTrend Technology - Canada   ____________          ___  ~     
Thornhill, Ontario,  Canada   |OOOOOOOOOO| ________  o|__||=   
Phone: (905) 731-9000  x238   |__________|_|______|_|______)   
Cell.: (416) 565-1682  x238    oo      oo   oo  oo   OOOo=o\   
Fax:   (905) 731-9202       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
mailto:NPalmer@NxTrend.com    AS/400  The Ultimate Business Server      
http://www.NxTrend.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leland, David [SMTP:dleland@Harter.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 1:01 PM
> To:   'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'
> Subject:      RE: IBM Y2K Readiness
> 
> Just got a call from IBM and they are working on a PTF to the problem.
> Was told that they're a "little behind on Fax/400".  Funny that they
> should should list Fax/400 as being Y2K ready in the Year 2000 Product
> Readiness DataBase.
> 
> Dave
> 
> > ----------
> > From:       Leland, David[SMTP:dleland@harter.com]
> > Sent:       Thursday, July 30, 1998 9:23 AM
> > To:         'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'
> > Subject:    IBM Y2K Readiness
> > 
> > Just received an interesting response from IBM regarding their Year
> > 2000
> > readiness.  We are using their Fax/400 product and they claim it to
> be
> > Y2K ready.  I questioned this in an e-mail to them since I had
> noticed
> > a
> > log file (QAFFTLOG, which is an important file to us) had a 6 digit
> > date
> > in it (in the format YYMMDD) and did not have a century code to go
> > along
> > with it.  Following is the response I received from IBM:
> > 
> > > Answer 2) The OS/400 and IBM Licensed Programs will, in most cases
> > > continue to
> > > use a 6 digit date field for "release to release" compatibility.
> The
> > > system has
> > > delivered additional function for those cases where customers need
> > to
> > > see dates
> > > in a different format. Some of those functions are *DATE for RPG
> > > returns 8
> > > digit dates, CVTDAT supports 8 digit dates, ILE COBOL can extract
> 8
> > > digit dates
> > > along with a variety of other "tools". You can find out about
> these
> > > functions
> > > in a document titled "AS/400 Roadmap to the Year 2000" we have on
> > our
> > > web page
> > > at:
> > > 
> > >      http://www.softmall.ibm.com/as400/year2000/rldss/
> > > 
> > > The system previously had used a 6 digit date field with a 2 digit
> > > year. In
> > > that case, the year field represented 00 to 99. With the Year 2000
> > > ready
> > > versions of AS/400 products, the year field has been shifted
> through
> > > the use of
> > > a "window" so that the years 40 to 99 are associated with a "19"
> and
> > > 00 to 39
> > > are associated with a "20". In this manner, the system continues
> to
> > > use a 2
> > > digit year but can determine through the use of that window, the
> > > non-ambiguous
> > > year... You can find out more about the "window" in the AS/400
> > Roadmap
> > > document.
> > > 
> > It sounds like they're telling me that they don't intend to change
> the
> > date from a 6 digit date and it's up to me to use the date "window"
> > technique to determine the correct year.  Does anyone else besides
> me
> > feel that that's not right?  They could essentially tell me that any
> > IBM
> > system database file is Y2K ready as long as it has a 2 digit year.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > Dave
> 
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---