|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
It would appear the definition of "bashing" varies directly according to the
type of communication one enjoys with the vendor, the nature of the problems
encountered, and the degree of technical compentence one has with computers
generally and the product specifically. My expectations are pretty simple:
1) I expect the current version of software to perform all functions
necessary for its intended use - in this case as a tool for
trading/investing significant sums of money. The data issue (whether tick or
EOD) is a basic example. I've been buying data for over a decade and have
yet to find a vendor which provides bet-the-farm quality data: tick or
realtime. Yet the installed base of SC/TS spends untold hours verifying and
fixing bad data without the basic tools for automatically identifying and
quickly dealing with the inevitable bad data. In fact I submit that a lot of
the bad data should be detected and corrected (at user option)
automatically. Examples: 1) I get lots of EOD data from DD which has 10x
usual volume with no unusual price activity - a clear sign of bad volume, 2)
EOD data from DD which has price gaps of 30-50% on usual volume - a clear
sign of a split/distribution, 3) the recently mentioned bad ticks on INTC
which were clearly out of the usual price range. The bad data is not Omega's
responsibility, however IMHO the software is clearly unable to function
effectively in the environment for which it is intended.
2) I expect the current version of software to be thoroughly tested prior to
release. There is absolutely no excuse what-so-ever for a product to be
released to the public when beta testers are continuing to report
significant reliability and/or performance problems. Without naming names,
which would violate beta contract agreements with a number of companies, I
will state that I've retired from the beta testing arena because I got fed
up with having this happen. In the case of newly released Omega products,
many of us have certainly experienced significant problems which should have
been found and fixed prior to release.
3) I expect prompt and forthcoming response to well documented, reproducable
bugs and a fix within a reasonable period of time if the bug materially
impacts the use of the product. I've filed many such reports with Omega for
some years and most have been totally ignored. I currently have in my "sent
items" box a set of several bug reports which has been sent 3 times over 3
months with nary a response. For those who like examples: 1) try moving a
parallel line based on a linear regression line on a semi-log chart or 2)
drop volume and a couple of MA's on volume into a sub-graph, plot a FP or
Regression line study, look for the MA's in the drop-down selection list..
4) I expect reasonably prompt tech support from people who take the time to
read a concise and well-prepared problem report Almost without exception
the responses I get to emailed problem reports indicate that either a) the
individual did not bother to read the report or b) the time allotted to the
individual to resolve the problem limited the individual to pasting in one
of 17 standard responses. For example: I recently received a response from
Omega tech support which suggested that my problem might be solved by a
re-install when my problem report included the information that I'd
completed a re-install before filing the report.
In conclusion, it's been my experience that Omega lacks any meaningful
semblence of consumer orientation. The fact that they discontinued
participation in public forums on CompuServe and other online services
indicates to me that their entire business orientation is rather insular. I
don't for a moment deny the fact that their products have offered features
which are superior to the competition (most notably the EL capabilities)
however I hope and pray that one or more viable competitors emerge because
I'd like to cast my vote with cash.
Earl Adamy
|