|
The Ballad Of The Y2K
2000
Not All Bad
Ready
Y What
Y2K Song
Y2K Fix May Only Last a Generation
By TED BRIDIS= Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The most common technique used to fix computers vulnerable to Year
2000 failures is only a short-term remedy, and even advocates of the method acknowledge it
will require other expensive repairs or replacements within a generation.
The temporary fix, using a sophisticated twist of logic to fool computers, is highly
controversial among insiders because it's intended to work for only a few decades _
typically 30 years. One expert describes computers already fixed with the technique as
``little ticking time bombs waiting to go off.''
The Clinton administration and industry analysts estimate the method is being used to
patch 80 percent of computers in the worldwide repair effort expected to cost $300
billion.
The Y2K bug exists because some computers and software recognize only two-digit years.
They won't work properly in 2000, when they will assume ``00'' is 1900. If computers
aren't fixed, the digital meltdown could cause problems for banks, airlines, power and
water plants and even traffic lights.
So why is the technique, called ``windowing,'' used at all?
Simple: It saves money because it's quicker and easier, even if it only works for a
specific window of time. The permanent fix, called ``expansion,'' requires a tedious
line-by-line repair of all the dates expressed in two-digit years rather than four digits.
Experts hope ``windowing'' will prove adequate until these computers are replaced _ or
until programmers can devote enough time and money to make permanent repairs.
In some cases, corporate executives and government bureaucrats approved using the
method knowing that problems won't resurface until after they retire or change jobs.
``It's a Band-Aid, the way building a house out of wood and fiberboard is,'' said Jim
Duggan, a researcher with the Gartner Group consulting company of Stamford, Conn. ``You
hope you'll be somewhere else before it falls down.''
``It gets them off the hook,'' agreed Michael P. Harden, president of Century
Technology Services Inc. consultants of Fairfax, Va. ``I don't think some people expect to
be in those same jobs. Fix it now, get everybody off your back _ and in five or 10 years
if there's a problem, you won't be around to have to deal with it.''
Marvin Thornton led repair efforts inside one of the nation's largest banks, $40
billion Southtrust Corp. in Birmingham, Ala. He fought hard against using windowing to fix
his bank's computers but complained that some contractors insisted on the technique.
``It's really aggravating,'' said Thornton. ``They've taken the quick and dirty path
and not really fixed the problem.''
The federal government, which expects to spend $6.4 billion and has ordered its most
important computers fixed by the end of March, doesn't discourage agencies from using
windowing. But it warns of consequences.
``It's like the Fram oil filter guy: You can pay me now or you can pay me later,'' said
Keith Rhodes, a technical director at the General Accounting Office, which monitors repair
efforts at federal agencies. ``It's not solving your problem. It's delaying the
inevitable.''
Some government agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, have generally
shunned the method. The Internal Revenue Service allows it only rarely. The State
Department is using it on nearly half its most important computers, but also plans to
replace those systems within five years.
Other agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, freely acknowledge using
the technique. The agency's top Y2K expert, Ray Long, says he doesn't consider it a
problem or even just a short-term solution.
Using windowing, programmers instruct software to guess the century for dates that fall
within a specific ``window'' of time, such as the next three decades. The computer
interprets the year based on a future so-called hinge date, or pivot, that programmers
choose arbitrarily.
For example, a software program with a pivot of ``30'' will interpret years ``00''
through ``29'' as 21st century dates, but will assume years ``30'' through ``99'' are
during the 1900s. Some programmers use pivots of ``50'' or ``70'' to buy even more time,
but their choices are limited by a variety of technical factors. A pivot of ``70,'' for
example, might cause problems for computers trying to process birthdates earlier than
1969.
Once the pivot date is past, those computers will need to be replaced or patched again
as they begin quietly contaminating data by making wrong assumptions about the century.
Windowing is fraught with other risks, too. Different programs assigned different
pivots can cause havoc when companies or governments try to share information, unless they
take complex precautions.
Testing typically takes longer, too. Windowing problems might not appear until January,
when computers start guessing which century to use, said Noah Ross, a consultant and vice
president for Cap Gemini Group. In contrast, if the permanent ``expansion'' fix is done
incorrectly, the problem often is immediately obvious.
``It's an issue of pragmatism,'' explained Ed Yourdon, a consultant. ``Anybody who had
to go through that choice was very much aware of the tradeoffs. We'd like to do it the
right way ... and we don't have time, so even though it's a quick and dirty approach, we
have no alternative. Too bad.''
``It's a compromise,'' agreed Duggan. ``People with time and money took the high road
and did full expansion.''
Most people using windowing realize it's not a permanent solution, said Jack Gribben,
spokesman for President Clinton's Year 2000 council. ``The window closes, so to speak, and
you're back at square one.''
Harden, the private consultant, compared the computers fixed with windowing to ``time
bombs.''
``We'll replace this in 20 years, but isn't that exactly the same thing we said back in
the 60s?'' Harden said. ``The same people who created the problem are now fixing it, and
installing something that will have the very same problem down the road.''
03:39 PM ET 03/15/99
Poll Results on Y2K Attitudes
By The Associated Press
Some poll results on attitudes about the Y2K computer bug. When results don't total 100
percent, the remainder didn't know or offered no opinion.
- Do you think that computer mistakes due to the Year 2000 issue will cause major
problems, minor problems or no problems at all?
- Major problems, 21 percent;
- minor problems, 65 percent;
- no problems at all, 12 percent.
-
- In December, 34 percent said they expected major problems to be caused by the Year 2000
issue with computers. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll)
-
- Do you think that computer mistakes due to the Year 2000 issue will cause major
problems, minor problems or no problems at all for you personally?
- Major problems, 9 percent;
- minor problems, 56 percent;
- no problems at all, 32 percent.
-
- In December, 14 percent thought it would cause major problems. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup)
-
- Do you think the federal government is or is not doing enough to prevent serious
disruptions that may result from the Y2K issue?
- Doing enough, 56 percent;
- not doing enough, 32 percent.
-
- The question of whether private business was doing enough to deal with Y2K got the same
results as the question about the federal government. (ABC News)
-
- Are you personally planning to do anything to reduce possible disruptions in your own
life as a result of the Y2K issue or not?
- Yes, 29 percent; no, 66 percent. (ABC News)
Among those who told ABC they would take precautions, the most frequently mentioned
option was stockpiling food and water.
The ABC poll of 1,015 people was conducted March 5-8 and has an error margin of plus or
minus 3 percentage points. The CNN/USA
Today/Gallup poll of 1,021 adults was taken March 5-7 and has an error margin of plus
or minus 3 percentage points. The margin of error is higher for subgroups. |