At least 20% still expect major problems

82 percent of these firms have already experienced Y2K-related failures, up from 75 percent in August, Cap Gemini said. Fifty-six percent of the failures were caused by systems that hadn't be upgraded or replaced, followed by 44 percent that already were Y2K-fixed.

56 percent of IT directors and managers expect their critical systems to be 100 percent Y2K-compliant by the end of 1999

...and the 34% that are not going to be compliant? Uh-oh Pollys, what's up with that? Is this what you meant when you kept saying everything was fine, nothing's going to happen, no problem?

-- @ (@@@.@), September 27, 1999

Answers

Ooops! Still having math trouble...

That is 44% that are not going to be compliant at the end of the year... as suspected, the GI's or as the Pollys call them, "doomers" were exactly correct because we have exceptional perceptual ability to see the truth that lies underneath all the B.S...The S**t is going to Hit The proverbial Fan!

-- @ (@@@.@), September 27, 1999.

You've simply proved the OPPOSITE point of what you were trying to make!!

YES, many companies have ALREADY experienced failures due to Y2K.......and they will experience more failures.....

SO WHAT!! They have experienced these failures, and yet in spite of them, they remain IN BUSINESS. They will experience many more failures, yet by and large, they WILL REMAIN IN BUSINESS!!

Y2k is a BUSINESS PROBLEM....it is a RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT.......the risks are being managed in most companies.

The word compliancy really doesn't do justice to describing the real situation......in the real world companies constantly live with software that is not compliant, or perfect.......that's the nature of the beast.

Obviously, the degree of software running properly in order to 'get by' varies from industry to industry, however indicators show that the more crucial industries have a higher level of Y2K remediation completed.

In conclusion, yes there will be a strain on industry however it is unlikely to be much worse than the existing strain we live with every day due to the complexity and difficulty of having computer systems work flawlessly at the best of times.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), September 27, 1999.

Craig,

You are clearly having extreme difficulty comprehending the reality of January 1, 2000. That is a real date in time that WILL occur, no matter what these businesses think they can do with their computers. It will NOT be like conducting a little test of certain functions within the business where you control the parameters and conditions. Instead of affecting what is probably less than 10% of businesses that are currently trying to process year 2000 dates (travel agents, etc.) this is going to affect EVERY business IMMEDIATELY. And when only 56% EXPECT (and that is a very questionable EXPECT, judging by what we've seen thus far) to be ready, make NO mistake, we've got MAJOR problems!!

-- @ (@@@.@), September 27, 1999.

Craig and the other dense Pollies are obviously pathological conflict lovers. They thrive on getting you to respond to their posts. The more response the better. Let these folks die via starvation of attention. They only live to feed off of your energy like parasites.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), September 27, 1999.

OK Craig...

"They have experienced these failures, and yet in spite of them, they remain IN BUSINESS."

Dude...as the chinaman in the 30's usta say "No tickee, No washee!!" How are they going to stay in business My freind? The Washington Post (see the thread) has only 81 companies out of 800,000 that took advantage of the small business loans for Y2K remeadiation. Now lets go with the supposition that, yes, "there will be a strain on industry" How big a strain Craig? Will it be, 'Darn... the market doesn't have my favorite brand of bran this week!' or will it be 'must KILL for food...ug *grunt*'? How will the business operate if there ain't nothin' ta sell? And even then, unlike in the former USSR, with government run stores, our stores will not stay open if there is no products to put on the shelves. Why pay all the employees if there isn't anything to sell?

"...indicators show that the more crucial industries have a higher level of Y2K remediation completed. " What is considered crucial Craig? Food, Water, Heat, and Light. The four 'basic food groups' of modern man. Remove one and the pyramid crumbles.

And your statement "however it is unlikely to be much worse than the existing strain we live with every day" Dude! What strain? This is the most carefree and easy shopping zone in the -free- world. I don't see people getting freaked or bent over a shortage in the market very often. This's the Land of the Big PX. What happens when there is no food? Pack mentality and the re-birth of animal man, thats what.

Americans, by and large, are the softest, laziest, most decadent people in the world today. We have spoken before on issue similar to this Craig. Believe me...don't bury your head in the sand...(Its REALLY hard to breathe and live that way!)

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

@@@@, do you even read the articles you post?

You bold the statement that 82 percent have experienced Y2k failures, yet further down post it only affects about 10% of businesses?

At least be consistent enough to pick a number and stick with it.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 27, 1999.

Years and years ago, my uncle died. I wound up with his old copy of Tom Sawyer. Little pamplet was stuck in it. Claimed Americans were soft, lazy, apathetic, indifferent and worthless. Funny - printing date was 1914 or thereabouts. So soft and lazy Americans won WWI, WWII, the Korean War, won the space race and killed organized Communism.

Believe what you want - the evidence is greatly against the soft and worthless American idea. Matter of fact, much of the rest of the world considers us ruthless, tough, mean and dangerous.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Paul, I was brought up to think the Allies won WW1 & WW2 We know about Americans's fighting ability but their reputation as demon lovers still remains vivid around the old bases in the Uk to this day! LOL.

-- Chris (griffen@globalnet.co.uk), September 27, 1999.

"...ruthless, tough, mean and dangerous."

Yup. That's why a lot of folks living in our cities are a tad nervous about the rollover.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 27, 1999.

Paul, As a group, I agree wholeheartly, so my apologies if I offended. To quote VADM Yamato after he bombed Pearl Harbor "We have awoken a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve." Individually speaking, however, We Americans have no concept of hardship in any way shape or form. Damned few Americans even know what it is like to actually work for a living, much less have to provide food on the table, (as in kill it, gut it, pluck it and roast it) People have grown far too soft for my liking, and for it, we will see a die back of immense proportions at some future point in our history. (Not from Y2K tho...)

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Hoff,

Yes, I read it, but unlike you I am also capable of using my brain instead of taking everything in print as only what it states and nothing more. My point is that most businesses are not yet processing Year 2000 dates as part of their normal daily business functions. Some of them discovered they have problems by rolling their clocks forward, others during testing. But most are STILL not using year 2000 dates yet. Wait until January when they HAVE TO, no if's and's or but's. That will be a little different than tinkering around with their computers, because Jan. 1 is not a TEST, it is REAL!!! Many of the 56% will STILL have MAJOR problems, and the 44% that will NOT be ready?...that's an absolute certainty - they are DEAD MEAT!!

-- @ (@@@.@), September 27, 1999.

I guess, @@@@.

Looks more like you jump from one number to the next to support whatever statement you're making at the time.

Must just be me.

(BTW, the Milne act needs some work. Little more homework on c.s.y2k should do the trick)

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 27, 1999.

Billy-Boy

>>Dude...as the chinaman in the 30's usta say "No tickee, No washee!!

Take your derogatory rascist names and rascist stereotypes elsewhere.

-- Sandwich (anon@anon.anon), September 27, 1999.

Hey there sandwich man...

Take your PC police attitudes, fold them all into sharp corners and shove it FIRMLY in your forth point of contact, then get back into your hole where you belong.

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Here's the 44% you're missing there @:

From the same article:

56 percent of IT directors and managers expect their critical systems to be 100 percent Y2K-compliant by the end of 1999, up from 48 percent in August. Thirty-eight percent expect 76 to 99 percent of their systems will be Y2K-ready, while the remaining 6 percent of companies will wrap up testing on half to three-quarters of their systems by year's end.

82 percent don't anticipate noncompliant systems to cause a "significant business risk," while 12 percent believe noncompliant systems will cause a significant risk. Six percent weren't sure.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 27, 1999.

angels on the head of pins, or is it angels should have compassion for pin heads.

9.75, just because

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), September 27, 1999.

Buddy,

All you did there was just repeat exactly what I said:

"Thirty-eight percent expect 76 to 99 percent of their systems will be Y2K-ready, while the remaining 6 percent of companies will wrap up testing on half to three-quarters of their systems by year's end."

38% will be 76% to 99% compliant?

and.. 6% will be 50% to 75% compliant?

Do you know what even 99% "compliance" means?

SQUAT!! Ask Greenscum - he said so himself.

That is what is known as an oxymoron, "99% compliance".

If you're at 99% then you're NOT compliant.

Like I said... 44% WILL NOT BE COMPLIANT. As for the "expectations" of the others, well "expectations" don't pay the rent! The numbers talk, B.S. WALKS!!

-- @ (@@@.@), September 27, 1999.