OpenEuphoria

Fw: Y2K

• Posted by simulat <simulat at INTERGATE.BC.CA> Nov 14, 1999
• 575 views

Hi
Anyone seen this before?
Bye
Martin

> A Simple Fix to Help Make the Windows Operating System Y2K compliant:
>
> "You may think your PC is "Y2K" compliant, and some little tests may have
> actually affirmed that your hardware is compliant.  You may even have a
> little company sticker affixed to your system saying "Y2K Compliant"...but
> you'll be surprised that Windows may still crash unless you do this simple
> exercise below.  I know that I had not thought of this and my home
computer
> and  work computer would have failed Jan 1, 2000.  It is an easy fix but
> something Microsoft seems to have missed in certifying their software as
Y2K
> compliant.
>
> This is simple to do and VERY important:
>
> - click on "START"
> - click on "SETTINGS"
> - Double click on "CONTROL PANEL"
> - Double click on the "Regional settings" icon
> - Click on the "Date" tab at the  top of the window.
> - Where it says, "Short Date Style",  look to see of it is set with only
two
> y's.  It's set like that because Mocrosoft made the 2 digits setting the
> default setting for Windows 95, Windows 98 and NT.
> - The date format selected is the date that Windows feeds *ALL*
application
> software and will not rollover into the year 2000 if it is set with only
two
> year digits.  It will roll over to the year 00.
> - If it is set at "MM/dd/yyy" or "M/d/yyy" then it is fine and will
rollover
> for 2000.  If it is not you need to follow the next steps.
> - Click on the little downward pointing arrow on the right side of the box
> where it has the setting.  From "Short Date Style" and select the option
> that shows, "MM/dd/yyyy" or "M/d/yyyy".( Be sure your selection has four
Y's
> showing, not just "MM/dd/yy_.
> - Then click on "Apply"
> - Then click on "OK" at the button
>
> Easy enough to fix.  However, every "as distributed" installation of
Windows
> worldwide is defaulted to fail Y2K rollover... Pass this along to your PC
> buddies...no matter how much of a guru they think they are...this might be
a
> welcome bit of information!"
>
> Lesley and Wes.
>
>