posted 23 July 1998 04:57 PM               

Doesn't surprise me one bit.

From Info World (infoworld.com):

Microsoft not Y2K ready; key apps offer confusing fixes

By Ephraim Schwartz and John Cornetto InfoWorld Electric

Posted at 6:35 AM PT, Jul 6, 1998

With little more than 500 days left before the year 2000, Microsoft is still sending out confusing messages about its server and desktop applications that may mask the true extent of the year-2000 problem facing customers.

Officially, Microsoft executives insist that the company's applications are now year-2000 compliant. But many of those assertions gloss over a number of implementation issues that will create havoc for IT managers.

"[Microsoft] Office has been architected for year-2000 compliance for some time. Office 4 is year-2000 compliant with the exception of Access. Office 95 and Office 97 are year-2000 compliant," said Matthew Price, group product manager of the Office developer group at Microsoft.

However, each program within each Office version is "compliant" in its own way, and in some cases each revision of each package has a different formula for recognizing two-digit dates.

"For example, if you type in 'Feb. 29' in a field in Microsoft Excel, how that's interpreted depends on the pivot date in the version of Excel you're using," said Robert Lefkowitz, a consultant at Next Era, in New York. "In the current version you'd get February 2029. In the previous version, you'd get February 1929. If you were using this data in the year 2000, you'd get Feb. 29, 2000, because Excel knows it's a leap year."

Other issues are also unresolved.

A program written in Access, Excel, or Lotus that uses a two-digit date field may -- depending on the version -- get stored as 1900.

"Ship dates will be stored incorrectly or, if you query the sales for the last month, the program may not pull in all the records. Or, if you're calculating bond maturity dates, as soon as you go to 2030 it will think it's 1930," said Steve Haskell, a senior consultant and year-2000 specialist at Metamore Technologies, in Chicago.

Problems also reside within server applications, such as Microsoft's SQL Server database which won't recognize the year 2000 as a leap year.

"Our clients are hospitals and we use Access for the front end, VB [Visual Basic] as the middle tier, and SQL Server on the back end. We [may] have some real problems," said Randy Hartwig, a senior developer at Stockamp & Associates, in Lake Oswego, Ore.

Hartwig cites potential problems such as patients checking out of the hospital before they are born, bills being overdue before they are sent out and children born in the year 2000 may have a birth record that will show they were born in 1900.

But according to Microsoft, there is no problem, despite the fact that Microsoft says a program must recognize the year 2000 as a leap year to be compliant.

"The way we store date formats for the product as a whole does so in complete compliance with year 2000," said Doug Leland, lead product manager for SQL Server at Microsoft.