|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Has anyone tried to use the "fml"
function within an expert and succeeded? My 6.52 EOD apparently
won't let me do it, and if I want to use a complex indicator in an expert, I
have to cut and paste the whole thing. Any suggestions? Michael
Spencer</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu Feb 10 22:10:32 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09803
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:23:32 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA32461
for metastock-outgoing; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:11:22 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA32458
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:11:20 -0700
Received: from magpie.a001.sprintmail.com (magpie.prod.itd.earthlink.net [209.178.63.8])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA21723
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:24:34 -0700 (MST)
Received: from sprintmail.com (1Cust106.tnt2.santa-clara.ca.da.uu.net [63.23.197.106])
by magpie.a001.sprintmail.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA18193;
Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:09:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <38A3989D.3260A8A4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:05:35 -0800
From: "Lino A. Alessi" <linoaalessi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Forman <wforman@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: Metastock User Group <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: MS 6.52 EOD Printing Problems
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Feb 10, 2000
Bill,
Attached is a copy of the letter that I personally wrote to you
informing MS that their 6.52 EOD program had a serious printing problem.
The majority of the MS users that have encountered this problem have
since responded to your Dec 1st 1999 memo.
As of Feb the 10th 2000, I have not had the courtesy of receiving any
written response from MS acknowledging the serious 6.52 EOD printing
problem and how MS proposed to resolve it.
In addition, MS is forecasting to release 7.0 EOD update while existing
6.52 users stew in the 6.52 printing mess.
When does MS begin to function as a responsible software supplier and
respond to this serious problem. The nonresolution of this problem has
demonstrated MS's lack of consumer follow up..
Why not acknowledge the problem?
If 7.0 is the solution to the problem; then I strongly recommend that
all 6.52 paid upgrade users be given a rebate to be applied to 7.0. I
also suggest that all 6.52 users be given a rebate for the tremendous
amount of aggravation and inconvenience everyone encountered when they
upgraded to 6.52.
When will MS becomes a responsible software supplier and resolve these
glaring software flaws?
Surveys with no follow up is a joke and I seriously question MS
corporate integrity.
Give me a straight answer and tell me when will MS resolve the 6.52
software printing problems?
Attachment:
Subject: Re: Printing Charts with version 6.52
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:16:20 -0800
From: "Lino A. Alessi" <linoaalessi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Bill Forman <wforman@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: Metastock User Group <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
November 29, 1999
Bill,
I am deeply disturbed by the lack of adequate response I have seen from
Equis during the past 2 weeks concerning the obvious printing problems
that MS 6.52 demonstrates.
I also have had the same 6.52 printing problems and I would like to
express to the group how a professional, reputable and reliable company
tries to resolve an obvious problem.
Since I purchased the 6.52 upgrade in September, I have gone back to the
Xerox company concerning the Xerox 8C printer. Xerox quickly responded
and tried to determine whether their printer was at fault. Xerox even
replaced my 8C printer with the Xerox DucoPrint 11C. Xerox has gone the
extra mile and has responded in a very reputable manner and never during
our search for a resolution did Xerox stonewall the problem.
Living in Silicon Valley allows me to call many software companies in
the valley to explain to them what MS 6.52 software problems I am
confronting. Bill, the problem is in MS 6.52, and MS has not responded
to this glaring problem in a reputable and honest fashion. The
difference in response between Xerox and MS has been amazing. As a
business owner, I am bewildered over what the group writes about Reuters
your parent company- is their philosophy and lack of reliability in
supplying consistant data influencing Equis in their business practices?
How can a reputable and reliable company not respond or acknowledge such
an obvious and glaring problem in their software? The credibility of
Equis is at stake. Please, no more 6.52 patch fiascos.
I want to know when will Equis resolve the 6.52 printing problem?
Sincerely,
Lino Alessi
|