|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Frankly, I prefer to spend my time trading and looking for ways to improve
the bottom line. All those who think MS is a write off should buy whatever
they think is a better product and leave the forun in peace. Wading through
all of the negativity is counter productive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 11:16 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
|