|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Lionel (et.al.),
I have been using MetaStock for 15 years. FOR THE MONEY, it is the BEST
value on the market (period, period, period)...
I don't know if any of you "number crunchers" trade for a living. I do know
that last year I made over 1,000 trades and a few other contributors
(non-whiners) also logged over 1,000 actual trades. Somehow, we survived
without the floating decimal point.
I suggest that you vote with your dollars. Many people run both TS and MS
side by side (each has their features and benefits). Equis is probably at
least one or two years "down the road" in their future product releases. I
can assure you that many issues that are currently being discussed (and or
whined about) on the forum will "magically" show up as "fixes" in newer
versions. Will they cost, will Equis address your specific issue,
will............ Who knows?
Meanwhile, for under $400, it still the meanest and leanest program around.
Please remember: I too have had many discussions with Equis about what I
believe is important to include in future editions. Constant bitching about
tired subjects does not serve this forum. Try posting a trading approach,
an interesting indicator or something that smacks of "value added". If I
wanted to monitor a bunch of whiners, I would still be on the Omega group
forum.
Have a good weekend,
Steve Karnish, CTA
Cedar Creek Trading
http://www.cedarcreektrading.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: Current Day! Re: Other programs
> Neo:
> Look at Trader's tips in TASC for May 2001, then look at the web sites for
> the different pieces of software. I like the look of Wealth-Lab.com. It
has
> a powerful programming language which they describe as a subset of Pascal.
> There is a review on page 70 of Amibroker. Its cheap and looks
interesting.
>
> Last year Guy Tann made a very detailed and tedious examination of
> Metastock's stupid and incorrect number crunching. Ken Hunt dismissed his
> complaints and hasn't corrected them in the current version. Guy Tann is
not
> using Metastock anymore.
>
> Metastock has some good features, but its shortcomings are making me lose
> interest.
>
> I wonder how many former/existing users Equis lost with each new version?
>
> Lionel Issen
> lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "neo" <neo1@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:45 AM
> Subject: RE: Current Day! Re: Other programs
>
>
> > Lionel
> >
> > What are the other programs coming on the market?
> >
> > neo
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Lionel Issen
> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:35 PM
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Current Day!
> >
> >
> > Ken Hunt:
> > You have pressed my red button again. The can of worms exists and the
> > problem should be corrected.
> >
> > You sound too much like a child that doesn't want to clean up his room.
> You
> > seem to forget that some of the users are very knowledgeable
programmers!
> >
> > Memory is cheap cheap cheap these days. Just look at prices on the
> internet
> > or call your local computer mega store. Additional memory requirements
is
> no
> > justification for your attitude. There are probably higher management
> > decisions involved. It cost me a new computer when V 5.x came out: it
> needed
> > a pentium as it wouldn't run properly on a 386. This was more
expensive
> > than additional memory, and Equis wasn't concerned about the cost to
> upgrade
> > to V 5.x, so please spare us this weak excuse about additional memory
> > requirements.
> >
> > There are other software packages coming on the market that provide the
> > capability that Equis is unwilling to put into Metastock.
> >
> > Just scrap the existing program and start from scratch and include a
> > programming language interface (VB, C++ , Delphi, or whatever).
> > Lionel Issen
> > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "PD Manager" <pdmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 9:58 AM
> > Subject: RE: Current Day!
> >
> >
> > > At the risk of opening this can of worms again: you are correct in
your
> > > assumption. All numbers in MetaStock are stored as single-precision
> > > floating point numbers. With this type of floating point
> representation,
> > > the computer only guarantees 7 digits of precision. When you have a
> > number
> > > that exceeds this number of digits, any digits beyond the seventh are
> not
> > > guaranteed to be accurate. Any numbers that contain more digits than
7
> > are
> > > only approximations.
> > >
> > > To restate from past discussions on the subject: In the future, we
could
> > > move to double precision numbers to get 15 digits of precision (any
> digits
> > > beyond the 15th would be inaccurate), but this would more than double
> the
> > > memory requirements of the program. The additional memory
requirements
> of
> > > this approach is why the decision to make this change has not been
made
> up
> > > to this point.
> > >
> > > Ken Hunt
> > > Programming Manager
> > > Equis International
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John R [mailto:jrdrp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:52 PM
> > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: Current Day!
> > >
> > >
> > > I would guess this problem is caused by the underlying floating point
> > > representation MS probably uses for numeric variables. i.e. losing
> > accuracy
> > > at the extreme limits of range.
> > >
> > > Instead of using full century why not try using just 2 digits i.e. 00,
> 01,
> > > 99. Or if year collating order is reqd. 3 digits i.e. 098 (for 1998)
099
> > > (for 1999) 100 (for 2000) 101 (for 2001) etc.
> > >
> > > Haven't checked any of this!
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "C.S." <csaxe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Current Day!
> > >
> > >
> > > I tried the equation backwards to see if DDMMYYYY would work.
> > >
> > > DOM:=DayOfMonth();
> > > MON:=Month();
> > > YR:=Year();
> > > YR+(MON*10000)+(DOM*1000000)
> > >
> > > It works for the first day but not for the days at the end of the
month.
> > > for 4/30/2001 I get 30042000 and not 30042001.
> > >
> > > -Corey
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Steve Brann
> > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:36 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Current Day!
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi L
> > >
> > > Thanks. Version 7.02 end of day version.
> > >
> > > I am also getting results such as 20001032 (Oct 32nd, 2000) when I
> > should
> > > be getting 20001101 (Nov 1st,2000). Interesting eh?
> > >
> > > Steve
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Lionel Issen
> > > Sent: 02 May 2001 14:52
> > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: Current Day!
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve:
> > > This is an excellent concise method.
> > >
> > > What version are you using?
> > >
> > > Lionel Issen
> > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Steve Brann
> > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:05 AM
> > > Subject: Current Day!
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I use the following in my explorations to denote the date of the
> > last
> > > price data in the format yyyymmdd;
> > >
> > > DayOfMonth()+(Month()*100)+(Year()*10000)
> > >
> > > However, this fails if the date is the first of the month such
as
> > > March 1st 2001, instead of getting 20010301 I get 20010300!
> > >
> > > Has anyone else experienced this and if so is there a solution?
> By
> > > the way, using DayOfMonth() on its own produces 01.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|