[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Quotes Plus 2.0, a finished product?


  • To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: Quotes Plus 2.0, a finished product?
  • From: Bob Jagow <bjagow@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:25:05 -0400 (EDT)
  • In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19980914100031.006f8ed0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Alan,
    The reasonably priced MS lib is only for reading the 2000/dir struct.
The prohibitive restrictions apply to any vendor (QP, for example), who
wants to output 2000/dir data -- that would include me if I sold a program
that effected that output.
Bob


Perhaps At 11:29 PM 9/14/98 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>From: "Richard Estes" <rtestes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:59:33 -0500
>>
>>2. Because Equis will not share their 2000 dir programming with others, you
>>are stuck with 255 size directories
>
>Richard, that's not 'exactly true' IMHO. Equis does propose a product
>for developers, ie MSFL.
>Some people told me that the 255/dir structure was provided for free
>with some old Dos versions. Maybe, but I found out that some programs
>(I won't name here) are corrupting data in some instances.
>What Equis does is provide a standard programmer library so everybody
>does use the same access tools. This motivation is a very good one.
>Also, the product price is not prohibitive.
>
>>Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:24:51 -0400
>>From: "Sean W. Smith" <sean_smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>Qp2 as every other data provider except equis supports MS data with up to
>>255 securities per directory. Equis will claim to license the technology but
>>the terms are very restrictive and all control lies with equis as to whether
>>they accept you.  No other data provider or charting program manufacturer
>>that I have seen supports their 2000 security limit format.
>
>Sean, what about Technifilter & Omnitrader eg ?
>The MSFL offer doesn't mention that a customer cannot buy MSFL if
>it does plan a competing product or data service AFAIK. The
>distinction is between private and commercial purpose.
>
>>This should
>>tell you something.  Add to the fact that their format is limited.  Why 2K
>>stocks?, not Y2K compliant, not compressed or as robust as more modern
>>formats.
>
>The format is Y2K compliant ("format" is not equivalent to Metastock or
>MSFL). I do agree this technology is obsolete, and the 2000/dir patchwork
>is horrible.
>
>-- Alain
>