In yet another example of the quality of information he supplies, North has perpetuated a e-mail hoax regarding windows on his site today:

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5766

Comment: 

It is not easy to get y2k information to every user of PC's. It is even harder to persuade them to act on it.

This switch was very simple for me to do. Everyone should do it. Hardly anyone will.

On January 1, when home computers don't work right, people who test them will panic. They will have the weekend to panic even more.

How will 200 hundred million users fix this on their own? None of this is intuitive. It's easy, but you have to know how. They will not know how.

I received this letter today.

* * * * * * * * * *

TEST

Double click on "My Computer".

Double click on "Control Panel".

Double click on "Regional Settings" icon.

Click on the "Date" tab at the top of the page.

Where it says, "Short Date Sample", look and see if it shows a "two digit" year. Of course it does. That's the default setting for Windows 95, Windows 98 and NT. . . .

Click on the button across from "Short Date Style" and select the option that shows, mm/dd/yyyy. (Be sure your selection has four Y's showing, not two)

VERY IMPORTANT:

Then click on "Apply" and then click on "OK" at the bottom.

Easy enough to fix. However, every single installation of Windows worldwide is defaulted to fail Y2K rollover. How many people know about it? How many people know to change that? What will be the effect? Who knows? But this is another example of the pervasiveness and systematic nature of the problem."

---------

Since I've seen this posted here as well, here is the Microsoft Response"

Windows 95 and Windows 98 Year 2000 e-mail hoax

Windows 95 and Windows 98 Year 2000 e-mail hoax

---

There is a hoax email in circulation on the Internet concerning the Y2K compliance of Windows 95 and Windows 98. There are various versions of this mail which resemble the below:

    "Every copy of Windows will fail on January 1st unless you fix
    it now, to fix it..."      

1. Click on My Computer.
2. Click on Control Panel.
3. Click on Regional Settings.
4. Click on the Date tab. Where it says, Short Date Sample look and see if it shows a two Digit year. Of course it does. Thats the default setting for Windows 95, 98 and NT. This date RIGHT HERE is the date that feeds application software and WILL NOT rollover in the year 2000. It will roll over to 00.
5. Click on the button across from Short Date Style and select the option that shows mm/dd/yyyy. Be sure your selection has four Ys showing, not two.
6. Click Apply and then click on OK at the bottom. Easy enough to fix. However, every single installation of Windows worldwide is defaulted to fail Y2K rollover.

   "Thanks and have a great day"

Facts about Windows 95, Windows 98 and Y2K...

• Microsoft Windows 95 and Windows 98 are compliant and customers do not have to perform the above steps to obtain compliance.
• Windows will store and calculate the date as 4 digits, independent of the date display selected by the customer.
• Dates are stored and processed by Windows in a 4 digit format regardless of the date display style selected in Regional settings.
• Customers can use the regional settings tab to adjust how the date is displayed (e.g. mm/dd/yy or mm/dd/yyyyy)

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 12, 1999

Answers

Thanks Hoff.

Keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), August 12, 1999.

And what has been lost by doing the steps that this "hoax" specifies? Microsoft's history of their claims of Y2K compliance ("compliant with issues" being the most laughable) may not match the FAA's lying through their teeth, but certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

Y2K is indeed a very convoluted and pervasive problem, and I have no doubt that there are a lot of people grasping at straws, including perhaps this one. The fact that there should even be, at this ridiculously late date, any question in anybody's mind on the state of their hardware and software and how it will behave in less than five months pretty much says it all.

Microsoft knew that 2000 was coming. It could have put itself in the position of saying, "Of course all of our products will recognize the new century! We made sure that our software was Y2K complaint years ago." But they cannot, and thus there is nothing but massive confusion.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 12, 1999.

If you enter only two digits for a year -- how does Microsucks know you really mean 19xx or 20xx? They depend on date WINDOWING. THAT IS PART OF THE FRICKIN' PROBLEM!! No wonder so many Microsucks software STILL has date "issues."

-- vbProg (vbProg@MicrosoftAndIntelSuck.com), August 12, 1999.

I see, Jack.

So you see absolutely nothing wrong with adding to this "confusion" by posting false and distorted information?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 12, 1999.

Again, Hoffmeister, I ask: What is the penalty for performing the steps specified by this "hoax"?

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 12, 1999.

No penalty that I know of.

But, that's not the issue here, Jack. You complain about the general "confusion", yet remain silent when North posts false information, such as people panicing over a problem that does not exist. Or that every single installation of Windows is defaulted to fail at rollover.

Why is that?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 12, 1999.

Jack & Hoff seem to square off about hoax and misinformation - but the problem is as vbProg says: WINDOWING. Windowing sucks - it adds more confusion and ambiguity than anything else. It is temporary. It is the worst way to approach Y2K. It will add much more confusion in data exchanges and will be a worse problem in 20-30 years than Y2K is now. And please, don't tell me we'll have all new systems and technology by then - we've heard it all before (Y2K, remember).

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 12, 1999.

I don't like false information (assuming that it is). I doubt that North put this on his site if he knew it to be false -- if nothing else, it would turn out to be very embarrassing if it turned out to be a hoax, making him look bad, etc. Especially since there are quite a few people who are ready to make a mountain out of a mole hill if they can somehow divert attention away from the real Y2K issues.

But the reason there is such "confusion" abounding is because Y2K is a very convoluted and pervasive problem -- which it never had to be. Banks should be able to say: "We saw the problem coming, we fixed it, years ago. No question." Electric utilities, telecomms, etc., should be able to say the same thing. That would have prevented such "hoaxes". And lots, and lots, of worry, grief, fear, uncertainty, and doubt as we head to 1/1/2000.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 12, 1999.

Jack, nothing wrong with following this procedure outside of the fact that it doesn't do anything. It leads one to believe that following these useless steps somehow makes the machine all better and that's the stupidity of it all.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 12, 1999.

WINDOWS 95 and 98 ARE NOT COMPLIANT!!

Some OEMs (boxmakers) shipped bo bo 98 as late as February of this year (I know, I have one).

Now that I have a cable modem, I will be downloading the relevant Service Pack for Windows 98.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@It'sALL going away in January.com), August 12, 1999.