Re[2]: sys/36 to 236

[ericadelong@xxxxxxxx]

Seems to me the problem with S36 Y2K conversion is that an automated tool would 
have to be VERY sophisticated to manage file and record field mapping. Program 
defined field specs seem to change from program to program (at least in my 
experience), field names change, overlapping data structures in the I-specs, the
use of OCL FILE statements to override files using missing parameters (file 
grouping xx.nnnnn), ..... It gives me a headache just thinking about it! <vbg>


_______________________ Reply Separator __________________________
     
> I am trying to convert from a sys/36 to a 236.  I am trying to do this so 
> that I can avoid the year 2000 problems with the operating system.  I 
also > need a 236 for any year 2000 update sofware to run to fix the 
application > software.  Neil wrote me and said that he didn't think that 
those machines > supported the year 2000.  Does anyone know if this is the 
case?  should I > go with a 436 over the 236?
>

I heard the same thing about 236 vs 436.  Could be true. Hate to take a 
chance for the minor price difference.

AFAIK there are no S/36 applications for Y2K correction process.  You may 
be able to find a company in your area which is willing to let you put your 
source code on their machine and let you run it through their 
impact/upgrade product.  Don't know, but there may be companies that 
provide this kind of service.  You may want to check with the vendors for 
Y2K analysis applications, but I think they charge by line of code and it 
could be pretty spendy.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---