December 8, 1998 Web posted at: 5:35 PM EST by Bob O'Donnell, InfoWorld columnist

From...

(IDG) -- As we approach the one-year mark for the millennium countdown, coverage of the year-2000 problem is going into overdrive. In addition to spilling enormous amounts of ink in the trade press, the general press is starting its own wave of stories on the infamous date issue, with the result that more and more people are being made aware of the issue.

Not surprisingly, most of the articles are gloom-and-doom pieces concentrating on all of the bad things that might happen on Jan. 1, 2000 (as well as a few other big dates). As a member of the press, I am saddened to see so many of my cohorts living up (down?) to the claims of our worst critics: playing up the fear factor and making commentary and developing conclusions that ignore basic facts.

For example, many articles point to embedded computer systems as one of the problem areas that's sure to be affected by Y2K and recite all kinds of horror stories about what will happen to devices using these systems when the clock strikes midnight. I'm sure you've heard the theories: elevators crashing to the floor, pacemakers stopping, planes falling from the sky, the entire power grid going down, and so on. The problem is, they're all lies, according to people who actually work in or closely follow the embedded systems industry.

MORE COMPUTING INTELLIGENCE
	IDG.net home page
InfoWorld home page
InfoWorld forums home page
InfoWorld Internet commerce section
Get Media Grok and The Industry Standard Intelligencer delivered for free
Reviews & in-depth info at IDG.net
IDG.net's personal news page
Subscribe to IDG.net's free daily newsletter for IT leaders
Questions about computers? Let IDG.net's editors help you
Search IDG.net in 12 languages
News Radio
	Fusion audio primers
	Computerworld Minute

At the recent Embedded Systems Conference in San Jose, Calif., analysts and other industry watchers with whom I spoke were vehement in their critiques of those who claimed the Y2K sky was falling because of embedded systems. And even more importantly, they backed up their opinions with solid facts. They pointed out that the vast majority of embedded systems don't have any clocks and thus are immune to any type of date-related problem. A PC's microprocessor, for example, is technically an embedded system, and its calculations are not the least bit affected by date or time. Even those embedded systems that have clocks rarely keep track of the year; instead, most only monitor the day of the week or the time in between actions. A pacemaker, for example, only tracks the time between heartbeats. Similarly, embedded systems in elevators track the day and time of day -- much like a sprinkler system -- so, for example, they know to go into a low-power mode on the weekends.

And what about desktop PCs? Sure, some applications need to be fixed, but the infamous BIOS date rollover problem is so trivial it's almost laughable. For the vast majority of desktop systems that aren't Y2K-compliant yet, most will simply need to have the date changed (once) in the OS the first time they are turned on after Jan. 1, 2000. That's it.

Talk to press people who need to sell newspapers and magazines, consultants looking to make a quick buck, and applications developers in need of a big hit, however, and you would think the world was going to end. And, of course, combine that with the fact that there are some people who really do think the world might end at the dawn of the new millennium, and you have the makings of a monumental issue. (Not to mention a great movie plot -- look for Hollywood to fan the flames of fear with several Y2K-related flicks in 1999.)

Frankly, I think this is the real problem with Y2K. It's fundamentally a human issue and it's one that strikes at the very heart of one of our most basic human emotions: fear, particularly fear of the unknown. One of the things that I find amazing about this issue is that in all the Y2K coverage I've read, I've yet to see a single reference to the historical ramifications of the year 2000. It's almost as if everyone is in denial about how enormous this event is in the course of human history. Regardless of your religious persuasion or whether you are religious at all, the marking of 2,000 years since the birth of Jesus Christ is a big deal -- a far bigger deal than whether your computer systems are going to work properly come Monday, Jan. 3, 2000.

To ignore the historical significance of the new millennium and how it may affect the way people think and make decisions is a critical oversight. You need to keep it in mind both as a factor for your own decisions, as well as to help interpret the actions of others. It's a documented fact that about the time of the first millennium many people feared the world would end. Despite all of our scientific and technological progress, I believe that fear still exists in some form in many people today.

In a sense, the computer-related Y2K problems are a great distraction because people can project that fear onto these confusing machines that many resent anyway for having taken control over so many aspects of their lives. OK, this is a bit of cheap pop psychology, but I believe that a good portion of the Y2K hysteria stems from these kinds of feelings.

But even if the sole reason to be concerned with Y2K is the human issue and not the technological aspects, that won't negate the potential impact of Y2K. If anything, fear-based Y2K issues could prove to be much worse than any technology-based problems. Anyone who follows technology stocks, for example, knows that Wall Street doesn't exactly work from rational motivations. Fear-based selling could lead to a global recession a lot more readily than could technology-induced problems.

And this brings me back to my original point. The problem with Y2K is not about technology, it's about people. It's about people knowing what the real issues are and, more importantly, knowing what issues aren't real. The only way that this can happen is if people who are informed on the issue -- such as InfoWorld readers and other technical types -- spread the word about what's a legitimate problem and what isn't so we can, collectively, keep the fear factor in check.

Next week: Why Y2K isn't going to be anywhere near as bad as many people think.

Bob O'Donnell has been writing about, talking about, analyzing, testing, and using computers and other high-technology equipment for more than 13 years. He also hosts "O'Donnell on Computers," a weekly computer talk show heard every Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on San Francisco Bay area radio station KSFO (560 AM) and on the Web via RealAudio. In addition, he is the computer expert on the "Meeting the Challenge" television program.