|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Wrong.
Sorry Fritz,
a software "program" actually an "environment" by the name of Windows 95 came
out back then, that was/is Y2K compliant. Leave the software discussions to
us computer geeks.
You and others ASSUMED that TS4.0 would be compliant. Well, when you assume
you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me". I find it very unlikely that you or
anyone else had Y2K on their minds back then. So in the end, who do you have
to blame? Yourselves. In my opinion, Omega probably will have a fix (if they
want to) as soon as TS5.0 is out the door. So, have fun waiting!!
Umcane01
Return-Path: <omega-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by
air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v50.22) with SMTP; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:00:57
-0400
Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48])
by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id LAA27896;
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:58:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smartlst@xxxxxxxxx)
by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23922;
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:56:47 -0800
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:56:40 -0800
Message-Id: <199810261657.JAA27429@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Gary Fritz" <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:57:53 -0700
Subject: Re: y2K woes & omega
Reply-to: fritz@xxxxxxxx
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Resent-Message-ID: <"wnAtC.0.Lr5.OVBDs"@mx1>
Resent-From: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailing-List: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx> archive/latest/26977
X-Loop: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: omega-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
UMCANE01@xxxxxxx wrote:
> with the fact that when you and others like you, bought the
> software, you did not ask the question:
> Is TS4.0 Y2K compliant?
When did TS4.0 come out -- 2, 3 yrs ago? At that time software
purchasers should NOT have asked whether it was *already* Y2K
compliant. Most commercial software available at that time
(Microsoft Windows, to mention one large example) wasn't compliant.
Instead, they should have asked themselves "Is this company
responsible enough, and do they care about their customers enough,
to provide a Y2K fix before it becomes a problem?"
I suspect most of them *did* ask themselves that question,
and most of them assumed Omega was honest enough to fix such
a huge problem. Omega did all they could to further that impression
by repeatedly *promising* to deliver a Y2K patch before it was
critical.
Since then Omega has amply demonstrated their integrity in this
matter.
Gary
|