Will there be a 9/9/99 problem?

[tomndebb]

You are right.

Unless some truly stupid programmer went to the trouble to write a compression routine on a date field, September 9 will show up internally (on non-Y2K compliant software) as 090999 or 990909. There are routines that will eliminate leading zeroes in displayed fields, but only when there are hyphens or slashes present, (9/9/99 99-9-9), in which case the slash or hyphen breaks up the string of nines. No COBOL or SAS programs should be affected in normal use (unless, as noted, they had really stupid programmers).

(For that matter, the "all nines" usage tended to be a habit in the older Burroughs programs--most of which are gone. Most IBM programs used HIGH-VALUES to identify a series of X'FF' characters (all bits turned on to "1") rather than a series of "9999".)

I can't say that it cannot happen (lots of stupid people in the world), but unlike the Y2K bug that is a natural outgrowth of expensive storage, a "9999" bug for 09/09/99 would require active stupidity on the part of a programmer.

------------------
Tom~

[AHunter3]

The only 9/9/99 problems I know of originate in the liveware: users who got into the habit of typing 9/9/99 in date fields to mean "I don't know" or "irrelevant". If old databases are still running with such entries in records that were input back when, those 9/9/99 entries will be treated exactly the same as valid 9/9/99 entries (Y2K compliant or not), since the computer has no way of knowing that some schmuck meant "I don't know" and not Sept 9, 1999 when putting the data in.



------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

[pluto]

In a radio discussion of this topic someone mentioned that April 9th is the 99th day of the year. Some computer programs save dates in that format so the day/year becomes 99/99 for that date in 1999. Since this day has come and gone with no apparent ill-effects it lends credence to those who argue that there will be no problem. :)

(On the other hand, a confirming instance of a hypothesis does not always support that hypothesis -- suppose you set out to prove that there are no men 100 feet tall and you found a man who was 99 feet tall. A confirming instance? Yes. Does it strengthen your hypothesis? No. (Thanks to Martin Gardner))


------------------
"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"
-- William of Ockham

[handy]

Yeah, the weather computers won't be able to handle it, the weatherperson has to go outside and look at the weather, and we'' get our first accurate forecast.

[VegForLife]

In mentioning the "greatest debate of 1999" thread in the "Great Debates" forum, I was hoping to redirect the thinking away from "9999" as a date (which is what I thought it was all about to begin with as well). The "9/9/99" bug isn't about "9999" being used as a date, it's about "9999" being used as an end-of-file or end-of-program marker.

I just heard a blurb about it on the news this morning. Just about everyone agrees that few if any systems will be affected.

Rich

[Wonko The Sane]

I work in an oil refinery.
I am taking the next two days off.

[curious george]

VegforLife, thanks for referring me to the great debate thread. However, I think the 9999 debate is about it being used BOTH as a date and a max value. That would be a problem because the computer program could not tell which is which.

However, as I explained at the start, I don't think any program would use just 4 digits for a date. Six digits are needed, as in 090999, so I don't see any problem with using all 9's as a max value, 999999.

[VegForLife]

However, I think the 9999 debate is about it being used BOTH as a date and a max value.
Why? Can you point us to an article, or a website, or someplace else where the "9/9/99" bug is described as a problem stemming from using the string as a date?

If not, I'll have to go with the reasonable explanation given in the other thread, as well as the news story I heard this morning.

Rich

[Joe Burns]

I think 9.9.99 is what they call a fence-post
date. No one expects a crash by any means, but still the concern exists that something can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong.

I believe the date to simply be one to watch to gauge how the major the hit will be on 1.1.00.

[Nickrz]

One of our local TV news gurus is telling us "The digits 999 are used in lots of applications to tell the computer to stop processing data."

Freaking idiots are just trying to scare me old mum.

[MrKnowItAll]

The only 9/9/99 problem I'm aware of is yet another stupid MTV video awards show.

------------------
Carpe hoc!

[moriah]

Check out the date of this post. For me personally, there is no problem.

Peace.

[moriah]

Argh! Darned Central Time! Well, I'm OK in 9/9, don't know about the UBB or this server... yet. -m

[curious george]

I keep hearing from people (including veteran programmers) there will be some computers problems handling the date this Thursday for September 9, 1999, similar to the y2k problem but on a much smaller scale. They say the date 9999 will be confused with the max value 9999 used by some data processing programs written in languages like SAS and Cobol.

However, I don't see why there would be a problem because a program would need 6 digits to represent a complete date. Sept 9, 1999, would be 090999, so there would be no conflict with a max value 999999. If a program only used four digits for dates, the program wouldn't work for dates where the month or day was > 9, such as Sept 10, Oct 5, Nov 14, etc...

Am I missing something, or am I right that there should be no 9999 problem with computer programs?

[Strainger]

Let me get back to you on that one. I'll let you know tomorrow.

[VegForLife]

Check the "most important debate of 1999" thread in the "Great Debates" forum.

Rich

[Omniscient]

Nope, no probl...........

[ChiefScott]

How do you recall missiles? You see we had this problem aboard ship last night... around midnight...

[sunbear]

9/9/99 or 99/9/9 European style. No,it's not symmetrical.Just checking.
I have an instrument at work that is not Y2K compliant.There is no new software for it since 1991. The IS dept big shot told me about my problem.It won't be able to save data files. I told him no problem.The instrument thinks it is 1993. I never set the clock, I don't even know where it is.

[curious george]

VegforLife, you can use 9999 as end-of-file marker, or a max value, in a four digit field. However, you can't use it as an EOF or max-value in a date field that holds the month, day, and year, because you would need at least 6 digits for the complete date. Sept 9, 1999 would be 090999, or 990909, or whatever, but it would be 6 digits. So you can use all 9's (999999), six of them not four, to your heart's content as an EOF or max value.

Also, some of you have written maybe there is a problem with people entering 9/9/99 on the screen. However, inside the computer, it would have to convert that entry to 090999. Again, you can't use 4 digits for a complete date.

I still see no problem with the Sept 9, 1999 date.

[tanstaafl]

Well, the 9/9/99 paranoia seems to have been unjustified. There don't seem to have been any problems anywhere.

Now, maybe we can get the Y2k people to relax a little....

[C K Dexter Haven]

Right, tan, the RU#I@REJ concern over the 9/9/99 pro%*&#(*!)#@$*EMNFOW{#@ERHlem seems to have been high$#*DVN@#)HJEW#OIly exaggggggggggggggggggggggggggerated.

[Keeves]

I am a programmer, and I definitely do have vague recollections of seeing programs in the 1980's which had this problem.

The systems we worked on were for ordering and shipping merchandise, and one fields would be the date that we were supposed to ship it on. If an order was canceled, never to be shipped, this would be marked by changing the ship date to something special. Usually we used 123199 for this purpose, but I would not be surprised if Sept 9, 99 was used in some programs, because it is easy to type even with slashes.

Some people have suggested that the embedded zeroes make this a no-brainer, but I disagree. Our systems required the user to enter slashes, so that the computer would not confuse Jan 23 with Dec 3. It them took the slashes out and put zeroes in. 1/23/85 became 012385, 12/3/92 became 120392, and today 9/9/99 is 090999. Some programs look for "9999", but others look for "090999", because that's what is now in the files.

[VegForLife]

VegforLife, you can use 9999 as end-of-file marker, or a max value, in a four digit field.
The potential problem never had anything to do with "max values."
However, you can't use it as an EOF or max-value in a date field
You wouldn't put an EOF marker in a "date field."
that holds the month, day, and year, because you would need at least 6 digits for the complete date. Sept 9, 1999 would be 090999, or 990909, or whatever, but it would be 6 digits.
Which is why this potential problem was never about 9/9/99 as a date, it was about 9999 as an EOF or end-of-processing marker.
So you can use all 9's (999999), six of them not four, to your heart's content as an EOF or max value.
And what you *can* use has no bearing on what may have been used in the *past*, which is what this potential problem has always been about.

Anybody hear of anything happening anywhere? The only report I heard this morning said that nobody's reporting any malfunctions (but most places wouldn't, would they?).

Rich

[curious george]

Thanks Keeves, but a program wouldn't use 9999 in a date field because that's only four digits. It would have to use 999999 or 090999, which is perfectly fine.

Your 123199 example for canceled orders is more of a y2k problem. I hope people don't take the y2k problem too lightly because of the letdown after all the hype from this 9/9/99 hoax. The y2k problem is real.

[Keeves]

Maybe 9999 is a problem for COBOL programmers. I don't know. I am a BASIC programmer.

All I'm saying is that if a program OF ANY KIND has a special meaning for 9/9/99, then it WILL confuse today's legitimate date with that special meaning, and problems WILL ensue.

[handy]

Well, it's 9/9/99. How is everyone. By coincidence, 9/9/99 is also my 10 year anneversary [sp] for my best friend. I told her off...

[Persephone]

My husband was on the computer this morning, and expressed some relief that everything seemed to be running smoothly. I said "Well my dear, since you happened to be on the computer last night, until shortly after midnight, don't you think you would have noticed a problem before you went to bed?" Silly man. ;)

[nayaran]

9/9/99: Almost over, nothing wrong, except I didn't get a Dreamcast :)

Almost completely off-topic 9/9/99 blurb:
Our local ABC affiliate (WTVC, channel 9) had a local contest where the winner would receive $999.99 on 9/9/99 at 9:09 PM, from channel 9, provided that they live within 99 miles of Chattanooga.

[Satan]

My computer must have got really screwed up. It changed everything to 6666 instead!

------------------
Brian O'Neill
CMC International Records
rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html (http://rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html)

ICQ 35294890
AIM Scrabble1
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill

[NanoByte]

There don't seem to have been any problems anywhere.

The power -- and my computer -- went off here on the north side of Berkeley at exactly 12 midnight PDT last night. The power came back on only about one second later. It took me somewhat more time to get my computer up again, but no problem.

There was, however, lightning going on at the time, a very rare occurrance in the SF Bay Area. Power was lost at various times at various places around the Bay Area. According to my clock in the morning, the power later went off here for about 45 min.

I still don't believe in Y2K.

Ray

[AuraSeer]

At about midnight Central time-- when 9/9 clicked over to 9/10-- there was a power blink in my apartment, which booted my PC. I say "about midnight" because my watch read 12:01, but somehow I expect that it's running one minute fast.

[Markxxx]

No problems here at all. And it is 9/10. Still in all it is a cool date.
But not as cool as 01/23/45 must have been. Or 6/7/89 must've been

Anyone hear anything about lottery tickets. There was a big bit on the TV about people buying 9999.

[tanstaafl]

No problems here at all. And it is 9/10. Still in all it is a cool date.
But not as cool as 01/23/45 must have been. Or 6/7/89 must've been

I preferred 10/9/87 myself...

Next ones to look forward to are 01/01/01 or (European format) 20/01/2001.

[Mojo]

>>>9/9/99: Almost over, nothing wrong, except I didn't get a Dreamcast

I did. In doing so (and getting the games I wanted which was a major f#$%ing hassle, had to go to 3 different places) I noticed:
The Babbages computer died once.
Electronics Boutique (EBX) had their computer died twice.
Funcoland had to manually phone in all their credit card and check payments for verification.

As I don't know what program(s) they were runnning, the various OSes, and what type/how old the systems are, I don't know whether to attribute this to sloppy programming, overworking of outdated computers, or the impending apocalypse http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1575580349/qid=936993182/sr=1-1/002-8117387-0545465 .

PS- The Dreamcast rocks. Hard.

[VegForLife]

I still don't believe in Y2K
So what year do you think it's going to be after December 31, 1999?

Rich