|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=657445617-12072000>Ray:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=657445617-12072000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=657445617-12072000>I
sincerely apologize for the problems our software may have caused. Please
know that my development team and I take our jobs very seriously and we take it
personally when there are major problems with the software we have
produced.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=657445617-12072000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=657445617-12072000>As I
stated earlier, 6.52 and 7.01 were released earlier that we would have normally
liked. There are times that it is difficult to spend the required time
testing when there are large numbers of users screaming for their release.
I will admit that we bowed too early to the pressure to release early rather
than spending adequate time proving the quality of what were trying to
build. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=657445617-12072000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=657445617-12072000>I have
promised to this list that we will try and improve the quality of what we
release. To do this takes time. All I hope to get in return from our
customers is patience. Patience when they ask us "where is the release you
promised" and get a "it just isn't ready yet" response.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=657445617-12072000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=657445617-12072000>There
are many people involved in the design, development and testing of our
products. They come from a variety of backgrounds and they have a variety
of trading methods (just like the diverse set of users of our products).
No, we do not plan on abandoning the trading methods of any of our users.
We design and build our software to make it useful for the largest number of
potential users. That makes it nearly impossible to produce software that
is absolutely perfect for any specific group. We hope that we produce
software that is useful to a wide range of users and their equally wide range of
analysis styles and needs. This approach in itself, also creates
software that can provide useful features as a particular user's needs and
styles may vary over the years.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=657445617-12072000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=657445617-12072000>Thank
you for your suggestion regarding the layout editor. I will make sure that
it is added to the suggestion list for future versions. As I stated in
earlier postings, I cannot promise anything with regard to suggestions. I
have no overriding or special authority when it comes to the features in the
program. That is accomplished through a design group.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ken Hunt</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Programming Manager</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Equis
International</FONT> </P>
<DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Raymond Hodge
[mailto:rphodge@xxxxxxxxxxx]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 11, 2000 2:18
PM<BR><B>To:</B> metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Where in blazes
is 7.02 ????<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Ken Hunt<BR><BR>Ken some of us try to make our
livings using the visual capabilities of your software. Metastock is currently
the only provider I know of of visual analysis software which includes layouts.
I wonder if you understand that when you release bug filled updates like 6.52 /
7.01 we are actually prevented from earning a living for our families for a
period of time.<BR><BR>6.52/7.01 was buggy enough on the visual side that it
makes me wonder if anyone at MetaStock is actually using the software for visual
trading and analysis? I know that Allan McNichol used to, he told me so at
the futures shows in Chicago. Has he given it up since he got promoted? Do you
have any visual traders in your beta program?<BR>How did this mess get past you
guys? Could it happen again? That is a scary thought.<BR><BR>I realize that
mechanical trading is big right now. Newbies especially prefer it cause it looks
easy and less time consuming. And the mechanical guys are the ones who do most
of the research and posting. They have to, they are always looking for something
that works (and never finding it form the look of things). Us
Visual/discretionary folks spend that time analyzing and trading
markets.<BR><BR>But studies have shown that mechanical traders tend to burn out
(even the successful ones) faster and more often than visual/intuitive traders.
It has something to do with the roller coaster ride their equity balances take
and feelings of lack of control, etc.. Also it's tougher to develop an edge
training a machine than it is training a brain. <BR><BR>Anyway, visual/intuitive
traders are the ones who stick with you. For instance, I have been doing this
for years now and have yet to trash an account. I buy every upgrade, etc. just
to offer support.<BR><BR>Ken, to my knowledge, MetaStock is the best visual
analysis app extant. I sure hope you folks are not going to let it slip.
Especially not in favor of developing mechanical capabilities and features which
are already available in various other apps. Please do not abandon us visual
traders.<BR><BR>Finally, how about a utility for editing layouts? Not while they
are up on the screen. You miss too much that's not shown that way. But an app
that lets you edit MetaStock layouts in words, like you guys had years ago? it
was great. Where did it go?<BR><BR>Thank you for posting here Ken. Had to take
some guts.<BR>Ray<BR><BR><BR><BR>At 09:39 AM 7/10/2000 , you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type="cite">Ron and others:<BR><BR>I appreciate your candor
also. As I stated in my first posting, I am not<BR>here to defend
anything we have done in our products.<BR><BR>Personally, I find any program
crash as unacceptable. Hopefully, 7.02 will<BR>be an
improvement.<BR><BR>As for resource problems, we did identify and fix some
resource leaks in the<BR>program also. Beyond that, I can only hope that
our products are acceptable<BR>when it comes to "small enough" or "fast
enough". Measuring the<BR>acceptability of a program when it comes to
speed and efficiency is very<BR>imprecise. A real-time environment makes
it more difficult. From the<BR>beginning, we designed the real-time
aspects of the program to have no<BR>built-in limitations. The program
operation is only limited by the demands<BR>placed on it by the user combined
with the number of updates being received<BR>in real-time. This means
that it is indeed possible to "max out" a system<BR>by opening many charts and
placing calculation intensive indicators on the<BR>charts. Each machine
will behave differently based on what the user is<BR>trying to accomplish in
conjunction with the number of real-time updates<BR>required. If the
demands on a machine are getting too intense, the software<BR>will display a
series of warnings about low resources or an inability to<BR>keep up with the
real-time data flow.<BR><BR>I do know that it is a never ending challenge to
balance program speed,<BR>efficiency and usability with the escalating demands
of new and complex<BR>features requested by our users. We are always
attempting to improve our<BR>software and I hope we can get it right
also.<BR><BR>Ken Hunt <BR>Programming Manager<BR>Equis
International<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Ron Scott [<A
href="mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxxx";
eudora="autourl">mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxxx</A>]<BR>Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000
4:14 PM<BR>To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: RE: Where in blazes is 7.02
????<BR><BR><BR>Ken-<BR><BR>I appreciate your candor. Fact of the matter
is, I have had more trouble<BR>with Metastock crashing than any other
financial software package I have<BR>used. The realtime charts are
especially prone to cease updating, requiring<BR>deleting the chart from the
layout and then opening the security again in a<BR>new chart and adding it to
the layout, several times a day. Also, Metastock<BR>is a huge resource
hog, even on a Dell Workstation 933mhz 420 with 256mb of<BR>RDRAM!
System resources low, it says. What are we supposed to do, lease<BR>time on a
supercomputer?<BR><BR>However, your charts do have a better look and feel than
any other program.<BR>I hope you do get it right soon, so I can stay with
Metastock.<BR><BR>Another big problem is lack of easy data organization. You
should provide<BR>lists of securities by industry and sector group, not by
alphabetization.<BR>That does me no good. Also, backtesting is inferior since
you can only test<BR>one security at a time. In AIQ for example, you can
test as many as you<BR>want all at once.<BR><BR>Ron
Scott<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>[<A
href="mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5DOn";
eudora="autourl">mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On</A> Behalf Of PD
Manager<BR>Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:25 AM<BR>To:
'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'<BR>Subject: RE: Where in blazes is 7.02
????<BR><BR><BR>The final release build of 7.02 for MetaStock was completed on
June 28th.<BR>The final release build of 7.02 for MetaStock Professional was
completed on<BR>July 3rd.<BR><BR>The master CDs for both of these programs
have been given to our order<BR>fulfillment department and they are currently
undergoing duplication. I<BR>would expect the CDs to be available within
2-3 weeks.<BR><BR>I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for
their patience<BR>while waiting for this release.<BR><BR>I would also like to
address the quality issue with some of our most recent<BR>releases of
MetaStock. After the release of 6.52 and subsequent versions,<BR>we
recognized that we had a quality problem with our software. The long<BR>delay
for version 7.02 was a direct result of our focus on trying to improve<BR>the
overall quality of MetaStock.<BR><BR>Does this mean that we have fixed
everything or that users will not<BR>encounter problems with 7.02? Not
likely. With software of the magnitude<BR>of MetaStock, it is impossible
to promise that all problems have been fixed<BR>or even identified. I
can promise that we fixed numerous problems with<BR>MetaStock. Most of
these were reported by customers. Many of them were<BR>identified and
fixed through an increased effort of internal testing. All<BR>of this
increased focus on quality has taken additional time. We delayed<BR>the
release of 7.02 many times over the last several weeks because we wanted<BR>to
make sure we felt good about it. No, it won't be perfect but I
can<BR>promise that it will be better.<BR><BR>Although this is my first
posting to the list, I have been lurking on this<BR>list for many
months. I want everyone to know that I do read your postings<BR>and I do
feel and understand your frustrations. I am in awe of the
passion<BR>that our users have for the analysis they are doing. With
that passion<BR>comes the frustration that MetaStock doesn't always do exactly
what an<BR>individual user requires. It may be caused by a design issue
or it may be<BR>caused by an outright bug. I have also come to realize
that the passion of<BR>our users makes it even more impossible to make
everyone happy. We are<BR>trying to develop and maintain software that
works well for everyone. This<BR>means that it most likely will not be
perfect for everyone. There is no<BR>shortage of analysis techniques and
methods among the users of MetaStock.<BR>Each user is very passionate and
convinced about their own methods. If you<BR>don't believe that, just
look at the contents of this list over the last<BR>several months. We
constantly agonize over how we can make MetaStock a<BR>good, solid, overall
solution for everyone, from the novice investor to the<BR>professional.
It is an ongoing work in progress. It is also no easy task<BR>but we are
trying to meet the challenge head on.<BR><BR>I will continue to monitor this
list, and I will make an occasional<BR>contribution. In return, all I
ask is that the members of this list<BR>continue to be patient with us.
We do not enjoy frustrating our users any<BR>more than they enjoy being
frustrated. Hopefully, those times are rare and<BR>isolated. I
admit that MetaStock is not perfect software and my development<BR>team and I
have made mistakes in design and implementation. We will
almost<BR>certainly make mistakes in the future that will frustrate our
users. We do<BR>not find this acceptable, but if we admit to ourselves
that we are not<BR>perfect, we are better able to always improve.<BR><BR>If in
the future we are delayed with releases of our products, please
be<BR>patient. I will promise to end some of the overwhelming silence to
the<BR>question of "where is the next release you promised". Please be
prepared to<BR>get answers similar to "It just isn't ready yet" or "We are
having problems<BR>and you wouldn't want it in it's current
condition."<BR><BR>In closing I would like to clarify my purpose for
monitoring and posting to<BR>this list. I monitor it to keep in touch
with our users and how they use<BR>our software. I also monitor it to
keep in touch with the problems they are<BR>having with our software. I
will admit that it isn't always easy to read<BR>the criticism of the software
that my team and I have helped develop. My<BR>team and I, however, are
not above taking criticism and we DO take it<BR>seriously.<BR><BR>Recently, I
have decided to make occasional postings when I can clear up<BR>some
misunderstandings or when I can contribute some meaningful information.<BR>I
do not plan on using this as a forum to defend Equis against
criticism.<BR><BR>Please be aware that I cannot provide technical support for
our products.<BR>The Equis Product Support team is much more capable of
providing quality<BR>support and troubleshooting than I. I am also not a
good person to contact<BR>to campaign for a feature addition or a design
change. No single person<BR>within Equis decides the feature set of our
software or it's overall design.<BR>The Product Development team is
responsible for the creation and maintenance<BR>of the product as designed by
the design group within Equis. I am not a<BR>good person to ask for
information regarding upgrade policy or pricing.<BR><BR>This does NOT mean
that I am not willing to contribute meaningful<BR>information where I
can.<BR><BR>Thank you again for your patience and understanding.<BR><BR>Ken
Hunt<BR>Programming Manager<BR>Equis
International<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
Nicholas Kormanik [<A href="mailto:nkormanik@xxxxxxxxxx";
eudora="autourl">mailto:nkormanik@xxxxxxxxxx</A>]<BR>Sent: Friday, July 07,
2000 12:07 AM<BR>To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: Where in blazes is
7.02 ????<BR><BR><BR><BR>This is getting ridiculous! </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Wed Jul 12 13:29:42 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 NAA28508
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:20:12 -0700
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26113
for metastock-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:27:17 -0600
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 NAA26109
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:27:12 -0600
Received: from bewley.net (root@xxxxxxxxxx [208.160.14.237])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA26240
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:49:22 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from ug@xxxxxxxxx)
by bewley.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09450;
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:31:45 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bewley.net: ug set sender to ug@xxxxxxxxxx using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14700.51105.196140.529213@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:31:45 -0500 (EST)
To: "MetaStock List Group" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Trade scaling: was Trade size Question
In-Reply-To: <200007121823.NAA02436@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200007121823.NAA02436@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under Emacs 20.3.1
From: Mike Campbell <ug@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Al Taglavore writes:
If I may switch gears on you a bit here...
> I almost always scale in and scale out of a trade. I may have three
> to five orders that will constitute one trade. If my opening order
> is profitable, I will then add to a winning position.
At what point and/or how do you determine that you've made a good
decision and add to a trade?
|