| 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 |