|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Thought the listmembers would like to look at the response I've got from
Equis regarding relations "users vs. Equis".
Vitaly
Return-Path: <support@xxxxxxxxx>
Received: from mailman.equis.com ([204.246.137.6])
by mars.superlink.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA03319
for <vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 01:51:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mailman.equis.com.137.246.204.in-addr.arpa with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
id <PY64HJXA>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 23:45:14 -0600
Message-ID: <24FA77225FA5D111869F0000C025B6F22AC336@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Equis Support <support@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: FW: future of MSWIN
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 23:45:11 -0600
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
The misquote you refer to was also taken out of context.
The comment did not say that we never receive the request only that it
is not as widely requested as the sender in this case seemed to believe
that it is.
George
Equis Support
Equis and MetaStock and MetaStock Professional are registered trademarks
of Equis International. Achelis Binary Wave, The DownLoader, Expert
Advisor, OptionScope, Quotecenter, and Smart Charts are trademarks of
Equis International.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vitaly Larichev [SMTP:vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 1:27 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; support@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: FW: future of MSWIN
>
> > From: Equis Support recently:
>
> > ....System Testing for multiple securities is not a large request
> either....
>
> Are you serious? The presumption of many on the list is that you
> collect and
> compile requests from users. Then you would remember how many times,
> perhaps
> not as recently, we've asked, even made long, thoroughly thought out
> lists of
> our suggestions on how to improve MS. They did include System Testing
> for
> multiple securities, sequential explorations, much better file
> management, etc.
> etc. So often we don't voice our support over and over again assuming
> that our
> opinions have been registered in some Equis files (sounds almost like
> Eqs-files
> <g>). Seems a mistake.
>
> As for System Testing, I honestly thinks it's not usable at all if you
> are to
> build a system. To assess a quality of a system, you have to gather
> STATISTICS
> on it! That is to run it on multiple securities. Having had it, you
> may then
> check a standing of a particular security vs. "all others" (within the
> trading
> system). But the way System Testing is now, you don't have anything to
> check
> against unless you have a many years of experience to substitute that
> gut
> feeling for the statistics! So it's not System Testing, it is Stock
> Testing.
> You can compare systems on a secuirity, of course, but again it's not
> about an
> overall quality assessment of the systems. Why to waste time finding
> out which
> one of two lousy systems is worse on that particular secuirity?
>
> Another minor programmably, but nagging in everyday use thing - a
> logic in "IF"
> condition: it calculates ALL expressions before checking the branch
> condition,
> i.e. in IF(A>0,B,C) it calculates A,B,C before checking if A>0,
> although both
> values of B and C are not needed due to A>0 condition (it's the case
> for MS
> 5.11, cannot say about later versions, but if the expression
> If (2>1,1, 1/(1-1)) gives you now an error calculating, that's it).
> The
> problem which may seem too puristic, is however very much practical.
> If your
> every night test takes an hour or so, that could be due to overhead in
> redundant calculations. I would love to save time by nesting "IF"
> conditions
> in such a way that the first one, fast and easy, would eliminate a
> majority of
> candidates whereas others, more time consuming would deal with much
> smaller
> number of stocks, sort of sequential approach.
>
> Without cheers on the issue, Vitaly
>
|