Whoa, did they write buggy code that fails to accomodate some type of leap-year situation? The juxtaposition to February 28th -> February 29 / March 1 is what's making me suspicious here.
Whoa, did they write buggy code that fails to accomodate some type of leap-year situation? The juxtaposition to February 28th -> February 29 / March 1 is what's making me suspicious here.
Doubt that, it's not even leap year and it didn't crash last year, which wasn't a leap year.
To paraphrase the Joystiq article to which CDI linked, it apparently was something clock-related, although I suppose only time and research will tell if some underpaid code monkey failed to account for certain days in certain months of 2010.
To paraphrase the Joystiq article to which CDI linked, it apparently was something clock-related, although I suppose only time and research will tell if some underpaid code monkey failed to account for certain days in certain months of 2010.
Maybe they thought that 2010 was a leap year, after all every century is. But still it'd be as simple as YEAR/4, detecting if the answer had a decimal, and if so, adding one day to February. I can't believe some person would code in every day of every month by hand for every year. (aside from the general 365 day calender).
EDIT: I'm not making too much sense. I say "Maybe they thought that 2010 was a leap year, after all every century is." because perhaps some coder misplaced the one on 2100. As for why they'd go that far ahead, beats me.
Maybe they thought that 2010 was a leap year, after all every century is.
According to the Gregorian calendar, only if the year number is exactly divisible by 400 (so 2000 was a leap year, but 1900 wasn't and 2100 isn't going to be).
Maybe they thought that 2010 was a leap year, after all every century is.
According to the Gregorian calendar, only if the year number is exactly divisible by 400 (so 2000 was a leap year, but 1900 wasn't and 2100 isn't going to be).
Oh, you're right. I had no idea about the divisible by 400 for turn of the centuries.
[...]we're hearing from Eurogamer that the villain in this story was an ARM chip inside the console -- the very same one, in fact, that led to a few Zunes losing their minds back in 2008. The big problem here was simply a bit of hardware that couldn't get its bearings straight after expecting 2010 to be a leap year, and the arrival of March 1 "fixed" everything for all eight affected PS3 SKUs (of a total of eleven). That leaves Sony with four years to make sure this problem isn't heard from again[...]
We've been saying it for so long it came true - the PS3 now really does have no games.
Well, its fixed now, but people couldn't play games before. I mean, the puns are endless.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
