However, the issue is real. And it will affect everything from legacy applications to the BIOS in your desktop computer. Whether traffic lights and ATMs will stop working on January 1 a year and a half from now is beyond me. I don't talk to the people who program those systems, and I'm not inclined to guess. I'm considering spending that time someplace nice, like Key West or South Beach, Fla. That way, if everything does stop working, at least I can hang out on the beach.

My Modest Proposal How then should we treat the year 2000 issue? My thought is to include a Y2K row in each of our features charts and ask vendors to verify that their products are safe for the new millennium. There are problems with this approach, however. We create features charts from a list of questions the vendors have answered for us. The author of the review or feature then compares his or her own understanding of the product to the answers that the vendor has provided, and herein lies the somewhat obvious problem: Vendors and authors don't always agree.

Normally, the author and vendor discuss the problem and come to an agreement. In some cases, the author/vendor made a mistake or had some misconception. In some cases, a vendor is informing us of future enhancements to its product when it fills out the survey needed for the features chart. But we aren't going to test for forthcoming Y2K compliance, and in all honesty, we're a bit hesitant to take the vendor's word for it.

This isn't the only issue that's been raised. A second issue that worries me--though it worries me less than having to trust vendors--is that if we include a Y2K row in our charts, we will be fueling the fire for what appears to be Y2K pandemonium. Is there really a Y2K issue if we're reviewing tape drives or hard drives? If we still ask the question when it may not be appropriate, are we fanning the flames or simply offering you reassurance that the products in the category are safe and you shouldn't worry about them in your Y2K planning.

My inclination in all this is to always ask the question of the vendors and to trust them, or ask them to cite the independent testing agency that has certified their products.

So rather than being a yes or no question, the answers could be:

· Vendor says, "No, we're not compliant."

· Vendor says, "Yes, we are compliant."

· Vendor says, "Yes, we are compliant with verification."

· Vendor has no clue.

I suppose there could be more options here like, "No, we're not compliant, yet...," but if we offer at least the four indicated above, we'll be giving you some important information that we aren't giving you now. And finally, if we think that a product category doesn't really warrant a Y2K row in a features chart, we'll say so somewhere in our review.

Your Opinion, Please Tell me what you want us to do. Take a second and drop me an e-mail at the address below. You'll see the results of our deliberations, which will include considering your input, in our pages. I'll also mention what we've decided in a future column. Look for that sometime in August. Meantime, book a room someplace warm and sunny, and let's all watch from a place where time doesn't much matter to see if the world comes to a grinding halt on January 1, 2000. If it does screech to halt and you happen to see me on a beach or wander into a bar where I'm watching the fiasco go by, say hello. I'll buy you a margarita--but only if the place will be able to take my credit card.

Art Wittmann can be reached at awittmann@nwc.com.