At 23:18 1996/12/01 GMT, Richard Warden wrote: >Chris, > >Although I'm replying to your first posting, I have read all other mail. > >I guess I am a little confused about the whole concept of the project. You >call the project Cinderella because it does not address a mainstream Y2K >issue. The similarity between Cinderella and mainstream is that they share a common problem. The difference is that Cinderellas cannot afford (or plain just dont want to) change their existing configuration. Previous to Cinderella nobody was looking at keeping what they had, trimming their sails a bit, and carrying on. The word was out - upgrade, migrate, move up, spend.. The ultimate goal of Cinderella is produce a Document containing Hints, Tips and Guidelines to allow any user to modify and test their own system. Each case is unique. There must be thousands of scenarios out there. Essentially Cinderella is about self-help for the individual. But said individual a) has to be aware b) want to help themselves >To date you have given great emphasis to PC date problems, >presumably because there are so many PCs around. Well, if you look at the Cinderella Classes, PC's tend to predominate. The high end Cinderella may actually be an elderly mainframe. At this point there may not be a solution for that class. Unfortunately it is a "hands-on" type problem, not easily solved by Network methods. >My confusion comes from the fact that I always thought the PC Y2K issue was >mainstream. For example, the UK economy depends more on the hundreds of >thousands of small business than the much smaller number of large >corporations running mainframes. This large number of organisations use >anything from a single PC to networks. Most of them are not in the IT >market, i.e. their core business is in some other market. As they are not >IT specialists they will need much support to identify and solve their Y2K >problems. Although the UK is coming out of a severe recession, I don't >anticipate that too many of them will have the funds to replace their >systems or undertake major investment in solving the problem. > >In summary, they will be looking for the sorts of solutions you postulate. Well there is no reason that they cannot use them, or develop their own techniques. >In my view the biggest problem we face is the rapid progess the PC market >has made in the last 10 years. This has created an enormous variety of >machines and PC applications in use today. Strange. I always thought the problem with microcomputers is that they produced micro minds B>) Yes. Many scenarios. Thus many sites to be tested. The basic Cinderella assumption is that by changing a few key parameters and by cataloging and classifying your own program suite you may find that you are more "Functionally compliant" than you thought. >I suggest there is more than one way to slice this cake. You describe >several scenarios, where people have different dependencies on dates, and >where they do or don't know the extent to which they may be affected. Correct. That is why the Acceptability Index exists. It provides a guideline as to whether you have a problem or not. >I'm not sure your list is in anyway comprehensive. I'm even less sure whether a >meaningful list can be produced. I am absolutely sure the list is totally imcomplete let alone comprehensive. The only real accomplishment is that we have a format and decision rationale mapped out. The only way we will discover if a meaningful list can be produced is to produce one and see if it is meaningful. Good grief. The project is only three days old. I think we are doing well to have produced anyhting at all. >Another approach is to focus, say, on software applications, identify the >versions that do or do not have date problems and devise workarounds, if >possible, for those that do. Precisely. That is what Topic 004 is all about. At this point we have not found any Unacceptables that need working around. The whole perception of PC's having a Y2k problem may be a paper tiger. >That way any user of a particular application >can check their version against the list, determine whether it has date >problems AND whether these problems will affect their business, and then >implement a workaround if required. The advantage of this approach is that >you do not classify people into scenarios, they classify themselves >according to the software they run and their needs. You have actually just defined the Cinderella objective to perfection. The Classes exist to help people define their position. The Acceptability Index allows them to categorise their programs and decide whether they have a problem or not. The Hints and tips allow them to exploit hidden possibilities in their existing systems. The procedures give them step by step cookbook techniques to test their own systems. >Given the thousands of applications out there this sounds like a huge >undertaking. It is not so huge if each user does it himself. He knows which applications he needs and can judge the results based on assigning an Acceptabiltiy Index. If, during this process he can produce feedback to the Cinderella project, we can update the list with the new findings. > However, I think it a problem that is not solved by one group >or team, but by the vendors themselves. I know that vendors push for their >customers to migrate to the latest versions running on Windows 95, and drop >support of older versions as soon as they can. The support I am seeking is >that vendors check all the version of their applications, determine >date-related problems and suggest fixes. All I ask for is information. Maybe I am a little cynical but I am not receiving much help from my vendors. They just tell me "Oh we don't support that old thing anymore". >There would need to be a very strong, high profile, driving force to make >this happen. How you sell this to vendors I cannot say. It may require >legislation. If the potential damage to a country's economy caused by many >small businesses hitting Y2K problems is high, this may be the lever. It >could be put to vendors that it is more cost effective for them to >contribute to a general reference source than answer many thousands of >individual enquiries about whether version X of their software is Y2K compliant. Let us leave strong, high profile stuff to the mainstream. They will be lucky to get it. Well legislation is on its way. I personally do not think that you can legislate solutions. >Apart from providing the motivation for this to happen, a central group >would be needed to collate the information and help in its dissemination. >One can envisage the development of a PC Applications Date Bible that >contains this information. Given the timescales, we are nearly in 1997, >five years ago I would have considered the idea unworkable. Given the >dynamics of distributing information on the Web today I think it is. Correct. That is why Cinderella is on the Web and Cookin'. >Start with a small number of major software vendors and build the Bible from >there. You don't need a large snowball, just one with enough weight to pick >up speed and grow. Well, I'm going to do it a little differently. At this point everything has been produced by me personally. We now need to move to the next phase and call for input. Have you tested the suggestions in Topics 001 and 004 on your machine? Which programs work for you? Have you actually found an Index '9' yet? Please give me feedback. As the Giant Extraterrestrial Plant in "Little House of Horrors" used to say: "Feed me, Seymour, Feed Me". >Richard > Thanks for the input. I'll be waiting for that feedback.