# Y2K - is K.I.S.S. solution too simple? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 13, 1999, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/y2k-is-k-i-s-s-solution-too-simple/5310 "1999-12-13T16:07:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![AWB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@AWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AWB)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 1999, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/y2k-is-k-i-s-s-solution-too-simple/5310/1 "1999-12-13T16:07:00Z")
A friend of mine has an old computer (486) that he doesn’t want to upgrade. (He just does word processing and a little database management on it.) He had some Y2K concerns, so he had me look at it. The database program (that I wrote) worked OK. It accepts 4-digit years, but defaults to 1900-dates if you only use 2 digits. I also changed the date to after 1/1/2000, and the program worked well. The real problem was when I set the PC to 12-31-1999 at 23:59. When the clock rolled over a minute later, it said Jan. 4, 1980. I told my friend to just adjust his clock New Year’s Day to the right date, and everything should countinue working well. But I have since learned that this problem has been noticed before, and the fix is to replace the clock chip. The computer held the date when I chaged it specifically. It rolled from 1-1-2000 to 1-2-2000 and other 2000-dates as hoped. But will the date fail later on? Is my solution too simple, or is it just right? ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 1999, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/y2k-is-k-i-s-s-solution-too-simple/5310/2 "1999-12-13T16:25:00Z")
It looks like you’ve done some good Y2K testing and found a workaround. One extra step you should take it to check for leap day 2000. Some non-compliant systems won’t treat 2000 as a leap year or misinterpret it as 1900 which was not a leap year. Set the clock to 02-28-2000 23:59 and see if it rolls over to 02-29 as it should. Proper testing goes beyond that but for a word processing machine that might keep it useful for a while longer. ---
**Author:** ![Timothy\_Campbell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Timothy\_Campbell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Timothy_Campbell)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 1999, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/y2k-is-k-i-s-s-solution-too-simple/5310/3 "1999-12-13T23:51:00Z")
Well, here’s a follow-up question that I **can’t believe** I haven’t seen asked before: Was there, during the 1900’s, a leap year that started on the same day of the week as the year 2000? If so, a _lot_ of problems afflicting non-Y2K-compliant computers can be “worked around” at least long enough to sort things out. (Do I have to explain this in more detail?) * * * Are you educated, erudite and maybe a bit eccentric? Please help us test a [new web game](http://www.pyroto.com)! ---
**Author:** ![Poto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ab992/32.png) [@Poto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poto)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/y2k-is-k-i-s-s-solution-too-simple/5310/4 "1999-12-14T00:18:00Z")
I scibbled it on my VCR manual, if I could find it, but I think the solution for VCRs was to use 1976. ---
**Author:** ![AWB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@AWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AWB)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/y2k-is-k-i-s-s-solution-too-simple/5310/5 "1999-12-14T03:10:00Z")
\*\*\*Timothy Campbell: Well, here’s a follow-up question that I can’t believe I haven’t seen asked before: Was there, during the 1900’s, a leap year that started on the same day of the week as the year 2000? \*\*\* Yes. 1972, 1944, and 1916. Every 28 years, the year starts on the same day of the week. And being a multiple of 4, years 28 years apart are either both leap or non-leap. Exception: if the 28 years spans a non-400-multiple century year. \*\*\*TC: If so, a lot of problems afflicting non-Y2K-compliant computers can be “worked around” at least long enough to sort things out. (Do I have to explain this in more detail?)\*\*\* Um, yes. How does 1972 being the same as 2000 help? ---
**Author:** ![Poto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ab992/32.png) [@Poto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poto)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/y2k-is-k-i-s-s-solution-too-simple/5310/6 "1999-12-14T03:41:00Z")
Well it gets the VCR straight, anyway. The numbers and weekdays are right.