|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Equis is a damn good product. Except for two major flaws that they haven't
addressed in a suitable way, no matter how many customers complain.
File management: They should co-operate with ALL data vendors not just those
they have business connections (royalties) with. The vendors would give
them the code. There should never be a size restriction on Directories.
Explorations results should be transferable to a sub-directory.
System tests: Muti-stock system tests are required to validate a system.
Now why don't they? There are so many users that restrict themselves, for
what ever reason, to a few stocks or futures. They have not joined the
electronic age of trading . they think of 110 files rather than 11,000.
They restrict themselves to a few indicators, never even looking at a Renko,
Kagi, Candle volume, 3 step break charts. They think TA ended with RSI. They
may be the majority. So the majority don't complain. If they do, they
receive condescending responses.
The recent release of RT is dimmed by a one vendor agreement with Signal.
Users like me are asked to give up my present vendor at a high cost,
exceeding the cost of the software many fold, to return to a vendor I had
found unsatisfactory in the past. I do not know if royalties are present,
but I am sure that the increased sales of software should have been a
consideration that would offset the royalties if they had provided
muti-vendors. Can you teach an old dog, new tricks? You can try.
Richard Estes
-----Original Message-----
From: Essan Soobratty <trader@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: FW: future of MSWIN
>Count me in for a loud yell.
>
>I have raised the issue with them a couple of times. Yes, they also told
me
>that I was the first to raise the issue. You'd think that the equis
support
>people would get together now an again and compare notes. Maybe I am being
>unreasonble in assuming that.
>
>If equis are not carefull I think another company may come up with a
product
>that takes market share away from them. I am sure that most of us would
pay
>a little extra if we could get additional functionality such as running
>system tests on a portfolio of securities or maybe running a system test
>that references multiple securities.
>
>Equis, are you listening? Please reply to the forum if you can hear us or
>are indeed still listening.
>
>All said and done, metastock is still a top class product and I am sure
I'll
>be using for many years to come.
>
>E.
>
>John Manasco wrote:
>
>> If anyone read Equis response to Altons query you will notice George
>> from Equis says that they have not received many requests for the
>> ability to system test across multiple securities. I know this has been
>> a discussion on this list on many occasions and is one of the features
>> that separates Tradestation from Metastock. Maybe if we all yell at once
>> we will be heard.
>>
>> John Manasco
>
>
>
|