|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Lionel:
Having been intimately involved in the development of software for Equis
since 1988, I want to set the record straight. Our motivations for our
overall software architecture have nothing to do with the issues you bring
up. We would never ignore "easy" solutions. Chances are that there are
numerous technological issues behind the scenes that prevent the "easy"
solution from being implemented. Things are not always as they seem on the
surface.
The fact remains that virtually all capabilities of MetaStock have been
added at the request of users of our software. The fact that we are unable
to implement all requested technology for each and every individual user
does not mean that we do not listen or care about our customer base. While
many users (such as yourself and others on this list) have been campaigning
for a more open architecture design, we have just as many users (if not
more) who want a one-stop solution for all their needs. We will create a
more modular design and we will open up to more third party developers, but
we will not sacrifice more of our already battered quality to do it.
We are working to implement many of the changes requested by yourself and
others on this list. I cannot guarantee that everything will be done
perfectly "to order" for each and every user. It remains to be seen if I
can lead a team of dedicated programmers to develop an application that
meets your needs as well as the individual needs of everyone who reads this
list. I can promise that I (and Equis) am passionate about trying to
produce software that EVERYONE finds useful and that is a good value for the
cost. In the meantime, I will not sit quietly on the sidelines if anyone
implies that Equis, my team or I do not listen or care about customer
issues.
Ken Hunt
Programming Manager
Equis International
-----Original Message-----
From: Lionel Issen [mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 11:50 AM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: To PD Manager - Data Feed Question
In the early days of Metastock, there was a basic version and a Pro version.
I think that sales were thin with the basic version.
Your idea of a modular version is great. It has been urged on Equis for
many years. There is also 3rd party software, like TAS, that would answer
many of the problems in Metastock, but Equis wont touch it. The present
solution of having to learn a new high level language is stupid. A more
powerful formula language would be a simpler and more elegant solution for
the user.
Equis doesn't want to develop a modular version. Unlike Investors FastTrack
they do not want to encourage 3rd party add-on programs. Reuters wants to
use Metastock as a means to sell their data service.
Lionel Issen
lissen@xxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: Al Taglavore <altag@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: To PD Manager - Data Feed Question
> Ken,
>
> Why cannot we have a basic model of the software and then BUY the
> additional modules from Equis that the user feels would enhance his or her
> use of the program in the manner he/she uses/trades?
>
> Rather than to have the premise, "... we will never be able to provide the
> perfect software for the entire spectrum of
> users, but we can try to produce software that the greatest number of
users
> will find useful in some way," why not
> build a model that will address the majority and then suppy different
> segments of the market with the tools they need for their markets and
> degrees of involvement. The person that trades a five thousand dollar
> account surely does not need OR WOULD USE the tools or methodologies of a
> person trading a half million dollar account.
>
> Would this not then allow Equis more flexibility and contribute to a more
> powerful program? No one can expect Equis to supply a Cadillac at the
> price of a Saturn.
>
> Al Taglavore
>
> > From: PD Manager <pdmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: 'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> > Subject: RE: To PD Manager - Data Feed Question
> > Date: Friday, August 25, 2000 10:20 AM
> >
> I have stated before that we do not consider our users computer or
> programming experts. Even with that, it is extremely difficult to make
> software useful to a user base where their technical abilities have such a
> wide range.
>
> We literally get hundreds of suggestions every year from a set of users
who
> want to make the software "easier to use". We get just as many
suggestions
> from a user base who want it to be "more powerful and flexible". The
> demands of these two groups are entirely different. The trick is to try
> and
> produce a software package that can fill both needs. Obviously we will
> never be able to provide the perfect software for the entire spectrum of
> users, but we can try to produce software that the greatest number of
users
> will find useful in some way. This also means that it is next to
> impossible
> to ultimately please everyone.
>
> We are always trying to make our software easier to use. We are also
> constantly trying to add features and capabilities that the "power user"
> demands. At this point we are not willing to do one of these things at
the
> expense of the other.
>
> Ken Hunt
> Programming Manager
> Equis International
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Heuby [mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 7:44 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: To PD Manager - Data Feed Question
>
>
> Ton,
>
> I do not blame Equis guys, I agree they made a nice software but right now
> this software can be used without problems only by experts like you.
>
> My goal is not to become an expert in operating systems nor softwares, I
> just want to forget technical stuff to focus on markets.
>
> All people in this list have more knowledge in Windows than the average
> Windows users.
> I am really far from an expert but I have installed several operating
> systems and a lot of softwares, sure I didn't make all perfect but all my
> other softwares including real-time systems are working nicely.
>
> I think next step for Equis would be to make MS usable by the average
> people.
>
> Gerard
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A.J. Maas <mailto:anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Metastock-List <mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: suggestions@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:suggestions@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 6:41 PM
> Subject: Re: To PD Manager - Data Feed Question
>
> You guys @ Equis are under-estimating the quality of your own products and
> that of your programmers
> and their programming skills + levels.
> You guys are also under-estimating the quality of the different OS
versions
> that are being used, eg
> stand-alone or in combination with your Equis products.
>
> >From only servicing + supporting some 10,000+ PC's, can easely come to
> this
> "OS stand-alone or in
> combination with..."-conclusion, eg from also having installed your
various
> Equis products on the
> various OS's in our company's internal program demonstrations ( to only
> show
> off to collegue's your
> program as a demo of what it is all capable of ) and from my own testing
> purposes.
> The best way to test this latter, is to install your products on clean
> OS's,
> eg prior to any other 3td party
> software installs, and after that particular OS is fully set-up,
configured
> right and set right.
>
> Then, following the above, a few more easely further drawn conclusions can
> be made:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> - Users can blame themselves for buying and installing unproper PC's and
> other 3td party accessories, software
> + hardware products.
> - Users can also blame themselves for not providing their PC's the
> environments in which the quality products
> can live an uninterupted production life, eg in the lack of having
proper
> installations, configurations, settings,
> software + hardware.
> - Users can further blame themselves for their lack and/or continiously
> lack
> in not providing their PC's the
> always required software + hardware maintanance, badly required for
> having
> decent productivity environments.
> - Users can also further blame themselves for being computing illiturates,
> eg blindly installing whatever 3d party
> softwares + hardwares they can get their hands on, and/or for making
> unqualified configurations+setting changes.
> - Equis and other software and hardware Co.'s can blame theirselves for
not
> providing full Knowledge Base (Archive in)
> Support, eg free scrollable tech articles, solutions, patches and other
> downloads commonly available on the Internet,
> as can be seen + is done by many other <very succesfull> Co.'s (eg
> MS,HP,IBM,FIC,Intel,Award, just to name a few).
> - Equis and other software and hardware Co.'s can also blame theirselves
> for
> not providing their users with free
> accessable educational articles on PC+their program combined use, eg
> still
> lacking in the above Knowledge Base.
>
> >From and for the above, there are no excuses to be made or accepted.
> Like known from the 0=OFF and 1=ON switch positions, you either do provide
> or don't provide..., eg point out to users
> what should and can be done and what should and cannot.
>
> Besides then easely providing the solving answers of any issues raised,
> this
> "public relation"-work will also be of
> a shocking possitively-thus-succesfull benificiary impuls to a Co.'s
> sales-figures.
>
> Like the Bartjens' Law states: 1 + 1 = 2
> (no other option : "nothing else : nothing more or nothing less").
>
> A big thumb up for your input+that of your Support+Sales Dep.'s is in its
> place, though.
>
> cc - suggestions@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:suggestions@xxxxxxxxx> {for
providing
> the above Knowledge Base}
>
> Regards,
> Ton Maas
> ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
<http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: PD Manager
> To: 'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' <mailto:'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'>
> Sent: donderdag 24 augustus 2000 20:22
> Subject: RE: To PD Manager - Data Feed Question
>
> Gerard:
>
> We have found that in some cases, virtually any Windows-based program will
> exhibit problems with specific versions of Windows. Although they may
look
> similar (almost identical) on the screen, there are numerous cases where
> the
> low-level programming issues between Windows versions are vastly
different.
> There are also cases where problems or quirks in the Windows system itself
> will only show up in specific versions of MetaStock. When you couple this
> with the numerous problems caused by quirks in various video or printer
> drivers, it is no surprise that only specific combinations of MetaStock
and
> Windows can show problems.
>
> Ken Hunt
> Programming Manager
> Equis International
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Heuby [mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 3:39 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: To PD Manager - Data Feed Question
>
>
> Ken,
>
> Don't know if other people in this list can confirm but :
> I have moved from MS Pro 7.0 on NT4 to MS Pro 7.02 on W98SE to use dual
> monitoring and I have more problems now although I have installed it as
new
> on a new clear system.
> My 7.0 was working quite well (out of some problems I did report in this
> list).
> I will not report all the problems I have now with 7.02 , some are not
> important and I can deal with.
> Others are painfull and I even had to re-install the whole thing.
> Out of this, my opinion is using MS with W98 is the main problem ( I do
> hope
> 7.02 is not worse than 7.0 ).
>
> (I will move to W2000 in the near future but I must deal with W98 for a
> while)
>
> Can you confirm whether operating system choice can affect MS use ?
>
> Gerard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: PD Manager
> To: 'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' <mailto:'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 2:49 PM
> Subject: RE: To PD Manager - Data Feed Question
>
> Testing was implied as being part of the debugging process. The omission
> was in my email and not in our process, although many would like to debate
> me on that I'm sure.
>
> Your not so subtle "shot" at us for recent quality problems has been
> received, understood and well deserved. We are trying to improve.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken Hunt
> Programming Manager
> Equis International
>
>
|