Very Computer

by **Art Gor** » Tue, 12 May 1998 04:00:00

Ok here it comes again -- the Y2K questions...

I have a customer that still uses a paradox 3.5 application that I
developed in the early 90's. It has been many years since I even thought
about that program. Now comes the question about will it survive when the
clocks ticks into the year 2000?

I actually found my paradox 3.5 diskettes, installed it, and built my old
legacy application. I set the system clock ahead to post Y2K, and did some
minimal data entry.

To my surprise, so far everything looks ok, if you don't mind the
formatting of dates "slipping" to 4 digits in 2000+

My questions:

Does anyone know:

1. Who does the support for paradox 3.5?
Borland/Inprise
Corel
No one
Expert paradox users "out there"

2. Is there a newsgroup dedicated to the "older" versions of paradox, e.g.
3.5?
Is there a newsgroup dedicated to paradox Y2K issues

3. Is there a compliance statement from Borland/Inprise/Corel regarding Y2K
compliance (with the usual waivers) for the older versions of paradox?

4. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to go about testing an old
paradox 3.5 (PAL) application for Y2K surprises?
Pitfalls?
The usual suspects?

Any advice would be welcome. TIA

Art Gorr
Pearson Technical Software

>>Ok here it comes again -- the Y2K questions...
>>I have a customer that still uses a paradox 3.5 application that I
>>developed in the early 90's. It has been many years since I even thought
>>about that program. Now comes the question about will it survive when the
>>clocks ticks into the year 2000?
>Nope. We're running version 7 and know we're going to have to upgrade
>to 8 (or 9) before 2000.

Sorry to say, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Paradox had ALWAYS been year 2000 compliant, PROVIDED you used the
provided DATE or DATETIME fieldtype. PDOX had ALWAYS stored all four
digits of the year in the sort order.

The ONLY problem you may run into with those fields is if you enter
ONLY two-digits as year, it will be interpreted as 19xx, even after
year 2000. This can be worked around by changing the input method
slightly to auto-prefix year input with 20.

If you used A6 or A8 (YYMMDD or MM/DD/YY) to store the date, then it's
your own fault and not even a Y2K compliant app can help you.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

PDOXWIN, Star Trek, Computer Games, Science Fiction, Writing, && more
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial use of this e-mail address implies your consent to pay me
amounts of up to US$100.00 per e-mail message from you received by me.

by **Steve Gree** » Wed, 13 May 1998 04:00:00

> Nope. We're running version 7 and know we're going to have to upgrade

> to 8 (or 9) before 2000.

Why is that?.. all versions of pdox are fully Y2K compliant.. the data
entry issues are different across the versions, but the issues are
code-related, *not* pdox-related

--
Steve Green
Corel CTech - Paradox
Diamond Software Group, Inc.
Waldorf, Maryland USA

by **Tim Bowde** » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:> The ONLY problem you may run into with those fields is if you enter
> ONLY two-digits as year, it will be interpreted as 19xx, even after
> year 2000. This can be worked around by changing the input method
> slightly to auto-prefix year input with 20.

Not true for all versions. Pdox 8 assumes '19xx' if xx is in the last 49
years
and '20xx' if xx is earlier.

by **Darin Depe** » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

> Ok here it comes again -- the Y2K questions...

> I have a customer that still uses a paradox 3.5 application that I
> developed in the early 90's. It has been many years since I even thought
> about that program. Now comes the question about will it survive when the
> clocks ticks into the year 2000?

> I actually found my paradox 3.5 diskettes, installed it, and built my old
> legacy application. I set the system clock ahead to post Y2K, and did some
> minimal data entry.

> To my surprise, so far everything looks ok, if you don't mind the
> formatting of dates "slipping" to 4 digits in 2000+

> My questions:

> Does anyone know:

> 1. Who does the support for paradox 3.5?
> Borland/Inprise
> Corel
> No one
> Expert paradox users "out there"

> 2. Is there a newsgroup dedicated to the "older" versions of paradox, e.g.
> 3.5?
> Is there a newsgroup dedicated to paradox Y2K issues

> 3. Is there a compliance statement from Borland/Inprise/Corel regarding Y2K
> compliance (with the usual waivers) for the older versions of paradox?

the Borland web site used to asy that Paradox has always been 2000
compliant because date are always stroed in 4 digits. ODAPI/IDAPI/BDE
has a setting for 4 digit year and year-bias. I couldn't tell you about
the DOS versions.

by **Steve Gree** » Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:00

> 1. Who does the support for paradox 3.5?

Tech support for PdoxDOS is handled by Corel.. you can ask questions
here, or on Corel's newsgroups.. or PdoxDOS on CIS

Quote:> Expert paradox users "out there"

Me.. any many others

Quote:> 2. Is there a newsgroup dedicated to the "older" versions of paradox,
> e.g.
> 3.5?

Same answer..

Quote:> Is there a newsgroup dedicated to paradox Y2K issues

Same answer.. all Y2K issues are gonna be in your code, and data-entry
processes, if any.. the product itself has no issues, other than the
fact that the "default" century for 2-digit data entry remains 19xx..

Quote:> 3. Is there a compliance statement from Borland/Inprise/Corel
> regarding Y2K
> compliance (with the usual waivers) for the older versions of paradox?

It's the same for all versions, DOS and WIN.. see above, see the FAQ on
Corel's website..

Quote:> 4. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to go about testing an old

> paradox 3.5 (PAL) application for Y2K surprises?

Make all date fields wide enough for YYYY, make all dataentry force
4digit entry, check your processes to see if you did any 2digit math..

--
Steve Green
Corel CTech - Paradox
Diamond Software Group, Inc.
Waldorf, Maryland USA

On Wed, 13 May 1998 12:05:28 -0400, Darin Depew

>the Borland web site used to asy that Paradox has always been 2000
>compliant because date are always stroed in 4 digits. ODAPI/IDAPI/BDE
>has a setting for 4 digit year and year-bias. I couldn't tell you about
>the DOS versions.

Dos Versions are now supported by Corel... ALL versions of Paradox in
fact. And since the table format never really changed, only APPENDED
to, they're all Y2K compliant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

PDOXWIN, Star Trek, Computer Games, Science Fiction, Writing, && more
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial use of this e-mail address implies your consent to pay me
amounts of up to US$100.00 per e-mail message from you received by me.

Very Computer

Paradox 3.5 year 2000 compliance

Paradox 3.5 year 2000 compliance

Paradox 3.5 year 2000 compliance

Paradox 3.5 year 2000 compliance

Paradox 3.5 year 2000 compliance

Paradox 3.5 year 2000 compliance

Paradox 3.5 year 2000 compliance

Paradox 3.5 year 2000 compliance