|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Rod:
I'd like to get a statement from Omega on this list relating to this
problem--have they made one here recently that I missed? These flaws are not
acceptable and not allocating staff to write code to fix these bugs now, before
version 5.0 is released, is bad business and unacceptable. WE cannot let it be
acceptable.
As I said, I am not examing TS version 5.0 until I have a patch for my TS
version 4.0 that is year 2000 compliant, is compatible with the new stock feed
increments and now has code fixing this initial bad tick bug--I'll be
hand-drawing charts on paper bags if I have to, but I won't spend another dime
for Omega products until these issues are addressed and fixed ON EXISTING
VERSIONS.
We have the power here, folks. Demand they fix existing versions. For those of
you out there sneering about one person not having any power, you'd be amazed
how many people each of us interacts with in our professions. And if
TradeStation users demand a fix and then become vocal in this industry, we'll
get the fix.
Tim Morge
J. Rodney Grisham wrote:
>
> Timothy Morge wrote:
>
> > Ahh, I see. I must have not read the post correctly or understood what you
> > meant. I thought you meant there was simply an errant tick out of the range. I
> > assume you are saying then that that first tick sets some sort or defacto range
> > for the day or for a packet of ticks?
> >
> > Please confirm if that's indeed what you mean--
>
> That's the situation.
>
> > Because that would be...well, it
> > would be, as you said, a very serious flaw and very stupid for Omega not to code
> > a fix for that problem immediately. Oh...that would have to get in line behind
> > the version 5.0 resource use, as well as the year 2000 fix and the
> > decimals/smaller fractions of the stock market feeds fix, etc...
>
> It is a serious flaw, and it is made worse by active stocks, because
> the more ticks, the more packets of ticks have to be edited.
> The situation that brought the discussion to the forefront in
> December/January was a bad initial tick for INTC on an active day
> when Intel traded over 18,000 ticks. With approximately 60 ticks
> per packet (I forget the exact number), that is about 300 ticks
> that have to be corrected. By hand, that is a big job.
>
> Unless Omega relents, it is indeed behind version 5 release.
>
> Rod
|