Re: Question: How will the Year 2000 bug impact your work?

dwf4930@is2.nyu.edu (David W. Fenton) wrote: >"Short date" is a format, not a data type. The date is still stored in >long form, and you can type in a 4-digit year. It just won't _display_ as >a 4-digit year. Unless it's an historical bibliography, there will be >little ambiguity for the viewer of date fields displayed with only 2 >digits for the years. It's not about displaying or storing. It's about entering. If you enter a short date today with "00", Access 2.0 thinks it's 1900. Likewise, if you enter a two-digit year in the year 2000 of "98", Access will store it as 2098. Thus we have to force/allow the users to enter 4-digit dates. I just read another post that said Access hasn't been around that long-- it shouldn't have a year 2000 problem. But, unfortunately, thanks to Microsoft and thanks to lazy developers that didn't decide to think about the year 2000 until this year, it does. I think this problem has been fixed in Access 7.0. (Not that anyone is using it.) Terri torrez@law.harvard.edu