Re: Y2K -Reply

[Daniel Montgomery <danmon@mindspring.com>]

Why should the user community for radiation instrumentation pay the entire
load for Y2K compliance.
These systems were bought with the expectation that they would be operable
until they wear out or are replaced.  It seems that industry should share a
larger burden of the costs for updates to provide Y2K compatability.  I
thought it was interesting that Packard would charge customers without
service contracts and provide it free for those with service contracts.
The attitude of the suppliers seems to be that the "Y2K problem" is an act
of god rather than a deficiency in design.  Since it is a design
deficiency,they should be doing everything possible to backfit software or
provide new software that is compatible for minimal costs to the user.

I would like to hear some other viewpoints on this issue.

At 03:56 PM 3/5/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Many HP laboratory instruments that are more than a couple of
>years old will probably have a Y2K problem. We have Packard
>liquid scintillation counters and Oxford Instruments (Tennelec)
>gas flow proportional counters that will have to be modified to
>deal with the Y2K problem.
>
>Packard has a game plan in place for most of its instruments.
>Newer instruments (2500/2700 variety) only need software
>modifications which is free to users who have a service contract.
>Those without a service contract will be charged $1,250 for the
>software. The 1900 series instruments will require a new
>computer and new software - $3,500 with a service contract,
>$4,750 without a service contract. Older instruments like the
>4000 series have no Y2K upgrade.
>
>Oxford instruments is still working on their game plan for Y2K but
>I hear a decision is supposed to be made within the next couple
>of weeks. No decision has been made as to wether there will be
>a charge for any of the upgrades.
>
>
>All the standard disclaimers.
>
>Keith McCartney
>Health Physicist
>B&W of Ohio - Mound Facility
>mccaka@doe-md.gov
>937.865.4068
>