The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Comments on Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-22-1999, 01:42 PM
pcalkins pcalkins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Ed stated that Mac OS and Linux are probably Y2K compliant. MacOS has been Y2K compliant since its introduction- its method of date calculation is different from that used by most other OS's. NO Y2K problems here- hopefully!
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 10-22-1999, 05:12 PM
Arnold Winkelried Arnold Winkelried is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,822
Someone beat me to it, but I'm going to post anyway, as a long-time Macintosh user. Never get on the bad side of a Mac user!

In the mailbag question Will my computer crash on Y2K if I don't perform the procedure someone E-mailed to me?, SDSTAFF Ed says

Quote:
I assume the latest versions of the Mac OS, Linux, etc., are also Y2K-compliant, but haven't checked.
What?? You're assuming that Microsoft would be ahead of everybody else? For your ed-ification, Ed, I copy the quote below from Apple's web page. Get a Macintosh and throw your PC (= piece of crap) away.

Apple in the Year 2000

The good news is that since their introduction in 1984, Macintosh computers have had the ability to make the transition to the year 2000. In fact, the Mac OS and most Mac applications can handle internally generated dates correctly all the way to the year 29,940.

------------------
J'ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Stendhal
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-22-1999, 09:12 PM
Ringo Ringo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 11,257
Why are they going to crap out in 29940?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-23-1999, 02:37 AM
DaveoRad DaveoRad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Although the Mac OS itself, as well as all Mac-related hardware, is Y2K-compliant, some application software has been found to have minor problems. The Complete Conflict Compendium (http://www.mac-conflicts.com/) discusses this in detail.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-23-1999, 02:45 AM
DaveoRad DaveoRad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Oh, and in answer to beatle's question: "The original date and time utilities, introduced with the original Macintosh 128K in 1984, used a 32-bit low memory global value to store seconds, starting at 12:00:00 a.m., January 1, 1904. Since the Mac OS used a 32-bit value to store seconds, this means that the last date represented in this 32-bit value is 6:28:15 a.m. on February 6, 2040. The current date and time utilities, documented in Inside Macintosh: Operating System Utilities, use a 64-bit signed value. This covers dates from 30081 B.C. to 29940 A.D." (Source: Technote 1049, Release 1.0 -- © 1996 Apple Computer, Inc.)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-25-1999, 04:26 AM
flodnak flodnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: outside Oslo, Norway
Posts: 4,709
All versions of Unix, including Linux and the BSDs, will also be just fine come New Year's. Unix doesn't store the date and time in the date/month/year format, but in seconds since a certain arbitrary (but constant) starting point. Now, the amount of space left for the date/time data will eventually fill up - in 2038 - but that does leave programmers a bit of time to deal with the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-26-1999, 12:25 AM
John W. Kennedy John W. Kennedy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chatham, NJ, USA
Posts: 4,511
I believe the Unix community is taking it for granted (not unreasonably) that by 2038 we'll all be running 64-bit processors.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-29-1999, 01:03 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
I believe the Unix community is taking it for granted (not unreasonably) that by 2038 we'll all be running 64-bit processors.
Good God, if we are still using 64-bit processors in 40 years, we are gonna be WAY behind!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-31-1999, 11:22 AM
John W. Kennedy John W. Kennedy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chatham, NJ, USA
Posts: 4,511
Well, I think 64 bits may be the stopping point for plain-vanilla integer arithmetic for the foreseeable future. (32 has been the norm for over 30 years, and is only just beginning to yield to 64.) The internal paths in the chip are something else again.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.