We are pleased to announce that the draft Y2K Cinderella Website is now online.
I popped into one of my customers today to see them through the traumatic process of year-end closeoff.
Having done this chore, I lounged into the "Networking" area to chew the fat with the techies there.
While listening to why they were sticking to NT 3.5 instead of taking the leap to NT 4.0, I happened to notice the displays were showing the old date form (mm/dd/yy).
Gently, and with great care and consideration, I suggested that by simply changing the date format in the "International" section they could get the benefits of Y2K compliance Network-Wide at the drop of a hat.
You would have thought I was suggesting that they instal OS/2.
No smiles. No offers of coffee. Hurt looks. General attitude "We don't WANT to."
Anyhow, as I was driving home nursing my wounded ego and muttering about ingrates, the thought popped into my mind:
"Does it actually matter what they do?".
On reflection, I came to the conclusion. "No".
The binary dates will continue to work correctly. It would be nice to have the displays show yyyy/mm/dd etc. It gives a warm feeling that the system is actually capable of working into the next century. But it does not actually matter.
It would be aesthetically "nice" to move from a grotty Acceptability Index 4 to a "Cool" Acceptability Index 0. But no harm is actually done.
If this whole Y2k thing is such a threat to these guys, is it not better just to let them carry on in their cloud-cuckoo land?
If their Management is so slack (because Management have been made very Y2K aware) that the installation standards have not been updated to reflect Y2K requirements, then why must I worry about these goats?
My problem is that I do worry. They are "my" customers, warts and all. So I took the problem up with Management again. Not a good time. Some idiot had written a letter to the MD suggesting that IS were not pulling their weight. Very sensitive issue all round.
My little suggestions for getting some benefits by doing "very little" were not met with favour. I am just making myself unpopular. Again.
Perhaps we should be lobbying the manufacturers (in this case Microsoft) to preset their packages with the YMD form so that when the "experts" install them the format will be "acceptable".
So, here is the Question:
"Where we actually KNOW that Y2K damage will not occur, is it necessary to force the issue of compliant displays, in the face of active resistance?"
I await your erudite comments.