|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dan,
The Metastock format that has 255 symbols per directory has been used by
several companies for a long time. This is because Metastock started using
it after another company that was using it went out of business. That meant
everyone could use it. This is part of the reason so many programs used the
Metastock format. When Metastock went to having 2000 symbols per directory,
this changed. They did this around the Y2K time. So their new format was
Y2K compatible and the old one was not. We were able to adjust the old
format to work after Y2K. The old format was freely available, so editing
was easy. The new format is not freely available. I am not sure about all
of the details. They sell their license as read-only fairly readily, but
that does not help us. We cannot work around this and will be using the
format that has 255 symbols. Thanks to Michael and Michel for their
perspective. I do not think everyone realizes the history of where this
stuff came from or why so many programs us the Metastock format.
Janene
janene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quotes Plus Tech Support
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan" <dcash@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 10:33 PM
Subject: QP2 Directory limitation -- Janene
> With the talk of file number limitations of 255, I would like to ask you,
Janene,
> more about this as this is the major reason I have not switched from Dial
Data. In a
> conversation I had with someone at QP a number of months ago, I was told
that it is a
> problem at the Metastock end; that it has something to do with Equis not
supporting
> your ability to download into directories with more than 255. Please
flesh out this
> problem. Is it that Equis allows DD, Reuters (obviously), etc. and will
not
> cooperate with QP? What is the status to have this changed? Is there any
> conversation between the two of you? Why is Equis not cooperating?
Cannot you
> program around this from your end? Why does Equis have to have a say?
>
> I would appreciate insight and not just a superficial answer, as I, and I
bet others
> would like to have some background.
>
> There is absolutely no possibility of me switching to Reuters, or you as I
do not
> like multiple directories to work from.
>
> Do you have any suggestions around this?
>
> I appreciate that you are monitoring this list.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
|