General > General Technical Chat
UNIX rollover - why 2^31 signed and not 2^32 unsigned?
<< < (3/4) > >>
Bassman59:

--- Quote from: ejeffrey on May 05, 2022, 05:34:22 am --- To the extent anyone in the 70s worried about Y2.038k
--- End quote ---

Thank you for writing Y2.038k instead of the more common and completely incorrect Y2K38.
nightfire:
No- back then, Memory and resources were scarce, and by that time the decision was made, the designers were full aware that it would have some limitations- but by year 2038 there would be more powerful systems available, so it was expected that by then a solution/updated version would be available.
SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: nightfire on May 05, 2022, 09:28:54 pm ---No- back then, Memory and resources were scarce, and by that time the decision was made, the designers were full aware that it would have some limitations- but by year 2038 there would be more powerful systems available, so it was expected that by then a solution/updated version would be available.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, sounds reasonable. And actually, the updates have been there for quite a while already.
Those still running old software for whatever reason, even if the reason is a good one, are responsible. Not the authors of 50 years ago. Come on. =)
PlainName:

--- Quote from: Bassman59 on May 05, 2022, 03:44:49 pm ---
--- Quote from: ejeffrey on May 05, 2022, 05:34:22 am --- To the extent anyone in the 70s worried about Y2.038k
--- End quote ---

Thank you for writing Y2.038k instead of the more common and completely incorrect Y2K38.

--- End quote ---

For an EE, why would the second not be correct? In fact, wouldn't Y2038 be the actual correct way - Y2K was, after all, just an abbreviation that appealed to computer types and could be mistaken for meaning Y2024.
langwadt:

--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on May 08, 2022, 09:05:04 pm ---
--- Quote from: Bassman59 on May 05, 2022, 03:44:49 pm ---
--- Quote from: ejeffrey on May 05, 2022, 05:34:22 am --- To the extent anyone in the 70s worried about Y2.038k
--- End quote ---

Thank you for writing Y2.038k instead of the more common and completely incorrect Y2K38.

--- End quote ---

For an EE, why would the second not be correct? In fact, wouldn't Y2038 be the actual correct way - Y2K was, after all, just an abbreviation that appealed to computer types and could be mistaken for meaning Y2024.

--- End quote ---

Y2K38 would 2380, so if anything it should be Y2K038

Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod