Unofficial Win2K Daylight Saving Time Fix

Saturn2003a writes "Microsoft has stated that they will not be offering a patch for the new US Daylight Saving Time for Windows 2000 and earlier. Only customers with an extended support agreement can get a Hotfix from Microsoft. To get around this, IntelliAdmin has created an unofficial patch (source code provided) that will fix Daylight Saving Time on Windows 2000 and Windows NT machines."

clocks

[erbbysam]

Think of the millions of clocks worldwide with automated systems b/c there authors didn't think that daylight savings time would change... sorta reminds me of something I saw in a "How not to program" book "don't set pi as a constant, you might have to update it".
I work for a large clock company and there sending out many (20+) people throughout the country to reprogram the clock controllers so that there DST tables can be automatically updated in the future, nothing like more summertime :D.

Re:I've got a fix

[CyberLord Seven]

Daylight Savings Time was originally sold as a method to allow children to travel to school in the safety of daylight. There is not much you can do about that during the Fall and Winter months when the day is so short, but you can adjust the clocks to help children during the Spring and Summer months.

It had nothing to do with energy until...well, that's another topic.

Re:I've got a fix

[jandrese]

Uh, you have that backwards. Daylight savings time was developed during wartime to conserve on energy by moving the daylight back towards the end of the day (people liked getting up late and staying up past dark back then too). So you might be thinking to yourself, that sounds great, why don't we do that all year long? The answer is the kids. We turn daylight savings time off in the winter because otherwise the kids have to go to school in the dark when the days grow short.

Think about it, most kids go to school pretty early in the morning, but get off in the mid afternoon. Shifting the daylight back certainly doesn't help them go to school in any more light, and there was never a problem on the other end unless you live very far North (in which case you're SOL anyway).

Re:and it's....

[Steve001]

The problem with not adjusting the clock is that there are forces that are working to move the clock both forward and backward. In the book "Spring Forward - The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time" by Michael Downing, he covers the issue. The back cover of the book lists those who support and oppose Daylight Saving Time (DST).

Some of those in support of DST:

• Golfers
• Major League Baseball
• Barbecue industry

Some of those opposed to DST:

• Farmers
• Hollywood movie studios
• Television and radio broadcasters

Although it is said that setting the clock back (causing the sun to set one hour later by the clock) saves energy, the savings is offset by the fact that more energy is consumed by people having longer to do things that consume energy, such as driving.

As a solution to the problem, another poster suggested setting your computer to ZULU time. Expanding on that, I think the best way to handle the issue is to use ZULU time for the time, and Julian dating (counting the number of days from the beginning of the year) for the date, for the master clock in the computer. That way, instead of having to tinker with the clock and calendar during the year, all you have to do is tell the system how many days are in the year (365 or 366).

This would get rid of both the confusion with the differing number of days in the month and concerning Daylight Saving Time. The local date/time would simply be referenced from the master date/time in cases (such as autodating letters) when you need your local time/date. But all of the computers interal workings are referenced from the real date/time stored in the master clock, which is not adjusted. The local date/time could be easily adjusted via a separate setting (ala "local time/date is ZULU + 10 hours"). That could easily be set and updated as needed.

A problem I see with a fix that is created to this is that it is likely to be a short-term fix for this specific problem. If the law changes and DST is changed once again will we face the same problem? It is much like the problem with Y2K, I wonder if we will have the same problem with Y2.1K?

Re:Umm... is this really a problem?

[smbarbour]

It is for anyone on a Windows network with mixed 2000 and XP installs using Active Directory. Kerberos (which Active Directory uses) will automatically deny access if the client's clock is more than 5 minutes off from the server's clock. If your server runs 2003 and your clients are 2000, or your server runs 2000 and your clients are XP, you will hit a problem.

There is a reason why every system clock in an Active Directory system is synchronized. If the server's clock is off from Atomic time, so will all of the clients.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I'll stretch it

[Anonymous Coward]

If an operating system does not define a language for a government agency to express amendments to time zone rules so that the people can download and install patches from a web site operated by the government, then the operating system is broken.

WOW! You couldn't be MORE WRONG! I probably hate M$ more than most, and I can tell you right now there is no legit reason to blame M$ for this one. When was the last time the laws regarding DST start/stop were changed? How could M$ or any other software company POSSIBLY have foreseen the need to change this on-the-fly?

And, if you bothered to read the M$ tech article [microsoft.com] on this you would know that they DO provide a way to update for this unforseen change that came along well after the release of Windows 2000. Yes it is a manual process but at least you can adjust Win2K to follow this recent change in DST start/stop.

No, Win2K is not broken (well, not because of this, heh). How ever I am miffed that M$ is not just releasing a free patch for Win2K users, it wouldn't be THAT difficult for them to do! They simply are trying to find more ways to kill off Win2K so they can get us hold outs to buy WinXP even though we don't want it... They are pissed that so many people still find Win2K and Office2K perfectly fine for their needs and are not willing to fork over hundreds of dollars for new software that they really don't need...