Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Watch out! Macrumors is 30th!
- Thread starter MrMacMan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm withholding my celebration until we're in the top 30 and have over 30k output a week...but good job, indeed. 
urm, it being 2003 and all, should we really be seeing effects of the Y2k bug?
i wish i could do more to help... but it's just my lonely ol' imac, chugging away as hard as it can...
pnw
i wish i could do more to help... but it's just my lonely ol' imac, chugging away as hard as it can...
pnw
Originally posted by paulwhannel
urm, it being 2003 and all, should we really be seeing effects of the Y2k bug?
i wish i could do more to help... but it's just my lonely ol' imac, chugging away as hard as it can...
pnw
yeah I was totally freaked out by that bug...
'wait, why did it set the years back... uuuhhh???'
well whatever, someone e-mail the guy, I have, too litlte engry r8 nw.
The most common way of fixing the y2k bug is to not convert the year format to 4 digits but to program a toggle year in and let the computer assign the century. For example, this program must use something like 50 for its majic number. So every year less that 50 becomes 20xx and everything over 50 becomes 19xx. That way you don't have to rewrite much code, and the odds are most numbers will work correctly. By the time it becomes a real problem, you will have scrapped the code.
However, what the programmer of this code is forgetting is that all numbers under 99 can be considered 2000 since the overtake dates will never be in the 1900's.
On all of the custom programs I modified for y2k, I solved the problem by assigning a default century. Users do not want to type in a 4 digit year every time. If they do not want to do that you have to assign a century for the 2 digit years.