RE: Y2K -Reply

["Wagner, Sanford" <Sanford_Wagner@egginc.com>]

Dear RADSAFErs:

I have always avoided like the plague saying anything vaguely commercial
to the RADSAFE members.  Now I feel I must say something.  

EG&G ORTEC is highly sympathetic to the view that customers shouldn't
have to take it on the chin just because the Year 2000 is coming.  For
some time we have been quietly building YR2K compliance into new ORTEC
products for gamma and alpha spectroscopy and whole-body counting.

All of the company's MCA hardware -- starting with our first PC-based
MCA built in 1983 -- was made to be and is YR 2000 compliant.  There are
no upgrade costs because there is nothing that needs upgrading.

All the 32-bit gamma and alpha analysis software produced in the last
year and a half is YR 2000 compliant.

Also, we have been concerned that people who have bought elsewhere are
going to face very expensive upgrades due to obsoleting of many hardware
and software products.  For them we have come up with the MatchMaker,
which allows users to achieve the upgrade they need while retaining the
hardware they obtained elsewhere.  This results in a large cost saving.

Anyone who wants more information can request it from
INFO_ORTEC@egginc.com

Sanford Wagner
sanford_wagner@egginc.com
Phone: 423-483-2251

P.S.  If anyone decides to flame me because of this message, I will
accept it.  I have written in the spirit of helping.

Sanford

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Daniel Montgomery [SMTP:danmon@mindspring.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, March 05, 1998 5:28 PM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	Re: Y2K -Reply
> 
> 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
> >