Why did they think all technology would stop working once it hit 2000 instead of the systems just you know, rolling over to 2000?
>>107597519>rolling over to 2000?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem
>>107597531Why did they design computers in such a retarded way though?>No, it is not important that computers should be able to tell the time in 20 years from now>The should however be able to falsely give a date from decades before computers existed!Moronic.
>>107597575Y2K bug was mostly a non-issue by 2000. Also:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem#Bit_conservation_need
>>107597519No, no, they were right. We all died in 2000 and this is hell.
>>107597575it's mainly software i competence, but keep in mind this is also in hindsight. for nearly 100 years people had gotten used to using two digits, even you now likely use '25 at least sometimes. the further we get the more we will just assume the years' starts with "20", like we used to assume "19". i remember seeing one kind of y2k bug several times where the year was printed as "19100", only taking the last two digits into account. also remember digital computing hadn't been around a century yet, and also computing tended to change far more often in the 80s and 90s than now. nowadays it's not weird to use 10year old software, but back then it was pretty rare, many devs likely never considered their software would be used into the '00s
>>107597519>1999 + 1 = 2000If I can do it a computer can. Why were 90s programmers so retarded?
>>107597818>implying it's a 90's problem
>>107597575the epochalypse is only 12 years awayby then we'll be on 100% solar power and paper houses
>>107597818Imangine you're writing something that deals with dates a lot in the '80s, people have 80 or even 40 column displays, ram measured in kilobytes, and storage measured in more kilobytes, and platforms come and go in like 5 years. why /wouldn't/ you just use two digits for the year?
>>107597844y2k38 will be y2k's bigger, stronger brother
>>107597851>you shouldn't think about the future because>uhhhhh
>>107597519There was worry about large database systems handling everything from mank transactions to flight bookings. Production databases tended to be running on older platforms, and some data respresented the year as a 2 digit string or a 1-byte number. Depending, it might wrap around to 1900 with undefined behavior for transactions, flights, hotel stays, utility bill periods, etc. that end almost 100 years before they start. Or in some systems it went from 99 to 100, and prepended "19" to get 19100 which could lead to valid but extremely long durations for things.
>>107597872working products don't get replaced...?that's the basis of the smartphone industry is it not
>>107597872>>you shouldn't think about the future becauseBecause optimization, space saving. It's important your shit works right now, not in 20 years.
>>107597872the idea someone would still be using it in 2000 wouldn't even cross your mind, at least not that version. most software was updated through the '90s but not everyone keeps their shit updated.
>>107597519Personally, I think it was technical ignorance coupled with fearmongering by governments and media. Any issues would be resolved years before, any organization that matters is not that stupid. Banks are not stupid, if something is going to affect them in the wallet they will make sure the issue is solved (unless they can scam governments). There was never anything to worry about - bios clocks are not really that important - the only thing I can think is some kind of communication issues between servers because time being out of sync?
>>107597519Because it would've stopped working if they didn't modify/update the software in time. Shit like this will cause massive problems in 2038 (if not addressed) because too many companies rely on proprietary software that isn't maintained. Usually the developing company doesn't even exist anymore.
nowadays you need a gigabyte of ram to run a fucking calculator
>>107597872because it costs money and doesn't earn money>hey client, how much extra are you gonna pay us if we make the software work for 15 years?>"none">alrighty then
>>107597818It takes 4 characters to store a 4 digit year as characters, but only 2 if you store the last 2 digits and write "19" before when a 4 digit year is needed. If you're thinking ahead, you put some logic to treat years below maybe 20 as 2000s.It takes 2 bytes if you use a 16 bit integer, but if you assume "19" as the century you can use 1 byte. If you store 1 byte, read that into a 16 bit variable and add 1900, Y2K wasn't an issue. But some systems converted it to text and prepended "19", leading to "19100".Back when these systems were made, saving bytes like that made a significant difference, especially multiplied over a bunch of records.>>107597575>The should however be able to falsely give a date from decades before computers existed!Computers often have to process birth dates of people older than the computer.
>>107597575>why didn't they design past systems with future technologyWe're not sure yet.
>>107597908>optimization, space savingHe might actually not be trolling because these concepts have became completely alien to both the programmers and users of today. They just throw newer hardware at the problem in hopes it will eventually go away.
>>107597959Then there's UNIX, which stores dates/times as a single 32bit/4 byte number, seconds since jan 1 1970. that will run out in 2038, it's a bit more forward thinking, but that was and still is very widely used. There is a 64bit variant now which will outlive us all, but there'll likely be a bunch of things still using 32bit unix time in 2038
>>107597993Yes, and nobody wanted to put UNIX times into a database back then. It used extra bytes depending what the date they were storing was, had to be converted to be useful, had unnecessary precision down to the second, and can't handle people born before 1970.
>>107598013it's a signed number so the earliest date supported is 1901, which admittedly when unix came out there were people born before that, but even those computers had limited resources, compromises had to be made to make it work well then rather than worrying about 70 years into the future. people thought we'd have flying cars in 1970, not overclocked pdp-11's in our pockets
>>107597966Why didn't they create better technology from the start?
>>107597872You had software dealing with gigantic databases that needed to work on systems with 512 KB of RAMShit was moving quickly and the idea of that software still being used 15 years later didn't even cross their mind
>>107597575corporations are lazy cheapskatesthey want to maximize profits now, so even when they were aware of the problem, their attitude was "that's a problem for another fiscal year"
>>107597519>Why did they thinkbecause they didn't pay attention to all the y2k patches that were released as we neared the end of the millenium.
And how come no one even thought to check "hey what will actually happen" by just changing the time on his computer
Reminds me of when i got my first bank card, the teller assumed part of my birthyear like "eighty..." like i was to finish that, but i must have been the first kid she'd seen who was born in '90 getting onetwo digit years were just so common before '00 kids just won't know. we're past y2k, we're thinking about it now.
Seems my computer is Y2K compliant so far
>>107597575Memory limits
>>107597519Don't worry, you'll get to experience the y2k scare all over again with us old timers. This time with extra schizos edition plus extra trolling.
>>107598372This was so gat back then
>>107597519it was just the peak of the dotcom bubble
>>107597519y2k was nearly 26 years ago. oh fuck
>>107598063Might as well have told the Wright brothers to not bother building a single plane until they'd invented & designed the 747.
>>107599424y2k is probably older than half the posters here at this point
this whole thread is the dumbest fucking troll I've ever seen
Think about CSV and Excel.Think about how common it is and how much other software exists than stores CSV.Think about users entering a date into a CSV and how Excel tries to guess what format the user uses.Think about how most people used to write years as two digits.Even if the software never stores years as two digits, it might have gotten user input that does it.If the user enters 04.05.16, what is the software supposed to do with that.
