Comments on: Why 2k? http://www.iqtrainwrecks.com/2010/01/20/why-2k/ A Website Dedicated to Information/Data Quality Disasters from Around the World Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:27:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Information and Data Quality Blog Carnival, February 2010 « Liliendahl on Data Quality http://www.iqtrainwrecks.com/2010/01/20/why-2k/comment-page-1/#comment-531 Information and Data Quality Blog Carnival, February 2010 « Liliendahl on Data Quality Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:55:14 +0000 http://www.iqtrainwrecks.com/?p=264#comment-531 [...] And finally, we have the post about the return of the Y2k Bug as systems failed to properly handle the move into a new decade, highlighting the need for tactical solutions to information quality problems to be kept under review in a continuous improvement culture in case the problem reoccurs in a different way. Why 2K? [...] [...] And finally, we have the post about the return of the Y2k Bug as systems failed to properly handle the move into a new decade, highlighting the need for tactical solutions to information quality problems to be kept under review in a continuous improvement culture in case the problem reoccurs in a different way. Why 2K? [...]

]]> By: Ken O'Connor http://www.iqtrainwrecks.com/2010/01/20/why-2k/comment-page-1/#comment-518 Ken O'Connor Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:15:06 +0000 http://www.iqtrainwrecks.com/?p=264#comment-518 Daragh, I predict the Y2K bug will rear its head on an annual basis... Here's why: A popular Y2K "solution" in enterprises with large quantities of legacy code and legacy data was (and remains) the "windowing solution". The "windowing solution" reads a two digit date (YY) from a database and prefixes it with a century (either "19" or "20"), thus returning a four digit date. There is a "window" of just 99 years... and the "window" was set to many different ranges. in 1999, a "window" may have been set as follows: Prefix years "10" to "99" with "19" (giving 1910 to 1999). Prefix years "00" to "09" with "20" (giving 2000 to 2009) In the above scenario, when the new decade dawned, the windowing solution went from "2009" to "1910"... need I say more? "Advanced" forms of the windowing solution may include automated adjustment of the window - but I doubt there are many of those. You are probably correct in your suspicion that people assumed that the system(s) would have been replaced before 2010... The reality is that "Old hardware goes into museums, while old software (and old databases) go into production every day, and every night ". Rgds Ken Daragh,

I predict the Y2K bug will rear its head on an annual basis…

Here’s why:
A popular Y2K “solution” in enterprises with large quantities of legacy code and legacy data was (and remains) the “windowing solution”.

The “windowing solution” reads a two digit date (YY) from a database and prefixes it with a century (either “19″ or “20″), thus returning a four digit date.

There is a “window” of just 99 years… and the “window” was set to many different ranges.
in 1999, a “window” may have been set as follows:
Prefix years “10″ to “99″ with “19″ (giving 1910 to 1999).
Prefix years “00″ to “09″ with “20″ (giving 2000 to 2009)

In the above scenario, when the new decade dawned, the windowing solution went from “2009″ to “1910″… need I say more?

“Advanced” forms of the windowing solution may include automated adjustment of the window – but I doubt there are many of those.

You are probably correct in your suspicion that people assumed that the system(s) would have been replaced before 2010…

The reality is that “Old hardware goes into museums, while old software (and old databases) go into production every day, and every night “.

Rgds Ken

]]>