>>>MS was sued just over this. The girl that sued them was correct.
>>>MS FoxPro programmers hosed up here, they certainly have a hard coded
>>>century setup instead of getting the century from the system. They should
>>>have lost that lawsuit but the judge declared it worked as documented.
>>>I know because I had to write a function that did just that - and I easily
>>>got the century from the current system date - foxpro has the ability to
>>>get it - the MS programmer just had no vision.
>>>
>>
>>The code and implementation for SET CENTURY was inherited from Fox Software; blame the right source for the implementation decision. It behaved as documented under FPW 2.6, and MS changed the behavior of SET CENTURY later in VFP. MS did not change the behavior of SET CENTURY in 2.6, and didn't change the docs, either. I can sympathize with people who b!tch about the bad documentation for the product, but now you're complaining that the product behaved as documented???
>>
>>If the system BIOS doesn't save and set the date properly, then Windows doesn't get the date at system reset properly. So the assumption of the ability to get the correct date may in and of itself be flawed. And of course if the date isn't stored correctly in the CMOS of the system, even if the BIOS is Y2K compliant, it can't get the correct date IAC...
>>
>>Could it be that you're laying the blame in the wrong place here?
>
>NO, I doubt that.

So you saying that if its the year 2000 and the century is set to 20 automatically, what would you expect as the year for a date entered as 12/23/99? According to your logic that should be 12/23/2099. Possibly NOT what was intended, but with 2 digit years, who could tell?