|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Alain Jossart
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 5:30 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Quotes Plus 2.0, a finished product?
>
>
>
> >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.
not really. see bobs post.
>
> >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 ?
Can they read 2K directory format??? Can anyone verify this?
> 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.
Have you requested the actual license agreements from Equis and read them.
I have. I suggest you contact equis if you want more details.
>
> >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 I do agree this technology is obsolete, and the 2000/dir patchwork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.
How?, the current format only has six significant digits in the float that
stores the date!
Sean
|