I found the following on one of the many lists I monitor. I followed the
instructions and, sure enough, I had only the 2-digit year. Needless to
say, I changed to the 4-digit year. Was this absolutely necessary? I don't
know - but it couldn't hurt! Janet
<<
Hi All,
Yesterday I rec'd a msg from Ala Bob on Y2K compliance, how to check your
system, and how to correct it. This morning Bruce followed the instructions
below and discovered our Windows 98 was NOT compliant, having only a 2 digit
year. I urge every one of you to follow the instructions below and make
corrections if necessary. Please don't assume anything. Bruce was under the
impression that systems after Windows 95 were Y2K compliant. Obviously not
true!!
A big THANK YOU to Bob for passing this on!
Cheers,
Nel
----------------------
>After running this quick little test, much to my surprise, I
learned that
both of my computers would have failed on 01-01-2000 due to a computer
clock
glitch. Fortunately, a quick fix is provided, should your computer
fail the
test. :
>
>TEST
>
>Double click on "My Computer".
>
>Double click on "Control Panel".
>
>Double click on "Regional Settings" icon.
>
>Click on the "Date" tab at the top of the page.
>
>Where it says, "Short Date Sample", look and see if it shows a "two
digit"
year. Of course it does. That's the default setting for Windows 95, Windows
98 and NT.
>
>This date RIGHT HERE is the date that feeds application software and WILL
NOT rollover in the year 2000. It will roll over to 00.
>
>Click on the button across from "Short Date Style" and select the option
that shows, mm/dd/yyyy.
>(Be sure your selection has four Y's showing, not two)
>
>Then click on "Apply" and then click on "OK" at the bottom.
>
>Easy enough to fix. However, every single installation of Windows
worldwide
is defaulted to fail Y2K rollover.
>
>How many people know about it? How many people know to change that? What
will be the effect? Who knows. But this is another example of the
pervasiveness and systematic nature of the problem.
>