raised questions for anyone who depended on a program in which the year was represented by a two-digit number, such as "97" for 1997. Many programs written years ago (when storage limitations encouraged such information economies) are still being used. The problem was that when the two-digit space allocated for "99" rolled over to 2000, the next number was "00." Frequently, program logic assumes that the year number gets larger, not smaller - SO "00" was anticipated to wreak havoc in a program that hadn't been modified to account for the millennium.

Sign up for the Timbercon newsletter: