ULTRASOUND Messages for August, 1998: Re: Y2K Compliance

Re: Y2K Compliance

From: Scotia Phillips, RT, RDMS

scotia@bellsouth.net

Mon Aug 31 05:18:35 1998

In 1986, we bought a DPA unit for measuring bone density with a Gadoliunium source. It utilized an IBM PC XT for analysis ( I've still got the PC in my son's closet, who knows when we might need access to those studies!). In 1990, we hired a programer to "fix" the problem of the year 1990. He made a change so that the clock did not run automatically but asked for the correct date prior to calibration and each patient study. It worked just fine for another 2 years until we retired the unit.

Neither Lunar nor IBM was prepared to fix this problem in 1990 without a $1000 fee. Fortunately, we had a local guy do it for $75. It makes me wonder if a lot of this hype over the 200 problem may be financial in nature. If the problem was around in 1990, the computer industry should have known for 10 years that it was coming. Any 10 year old PC's out there???

Yours for the Millineum!

At Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Terry J. DuBose wrote: >
>Wayne, try re-setting the machine date to early 2000 and then enter a LMP
>date for late 1999, but still within the normal 9 months gestation. The
>resulting age should not be a negative. I think this is the easiest
>method of determining Y2K compliance.
>
>I really can't understand how we have gotten into this Y2K problem. It
>was all over the computer industry literature during the early 1980's,
>and should have been fixed before now. When I was writing the code for
>BASIC BABY in the mid-80's (after 82) I was aware of it. I put 3 lines
>of code in the gestational dating calculation. When the date of the LMP
>is subtracted from the current date, the next line checks to see if the
>result is < 0 (negative?). if it is, it loops back with the instruction
>to please enter a 4 digit year. This will occur for about 9 months until
>all LMPs are in the year 2000, some time in October, 2000. Then the
>dates will go back to all being positive, regardless of whether they are
>4 digit or 2.
>
>It is an interesting problem. It has been compared as the worst human
>error of foresight since the Romans used lead pipes to build their public
>water system and poisoned the population. But, they didn't know any
>better.
>
>The New Year's celebration for 2000 will really be interesting.
>
>Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS
>
>--
>On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 22:38:06 MST-0700 "Wayne Persutte"
><wpersutte@brown.uhcolorado.edu> writes:
>>Someone in our Department asked me if our ultrasound systems are
>Year2000 Compliant. I told them I did not know? We have ATL and Seimens
>systems. I know that on the ATL, an LMP date of xx/xx/00 is defaulted as
>an error. Does anyone know if the current software is Y2K compliant?
>>Wayne.
>>
>> (o o)
>>-------oOO--(_)-----------
>>Wayne H. Persutte, B.S., R.D.M.S.
>>Assistant Professor
>>Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
>>University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO
>><<WPersutte@Brown.UHColorado.Edu>>
>>Telephone (303) 372-1026
>>FAX (303) 372-1816
>>----------------oOO--------
>>
>>----------------oOO--------

>>----------------oOO--------

-- Scot

Women's Insurance Checklist from Auto Insurance Quote

use when must restrict search to only the ultrasound forum...
Enter search keywords:
	Returns per screen: Require all keywords: