|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
What would get Omega's attention is an immediate Y2K lawsuit based upon the fact
that TS4 is unable to collect data for any of the many debt futures with
expirations after December 1999. This is a today issue, not something 18 months
down the road.
I've found that Omega has always emphasized the release of new products over
meeting its responsibilities to fix/maintain existing products. Further, it's
been my personal experience that Omega has rushed products to market before the
completion of the quality control cycle. I'm tired of phone calls from Omega
management telling me how much they care about their product and that I should
just trust them to solve the problems in the next release. I can't imagine
continuing to rely on such a company for software products which are critical to
my business. Thus, I will not purchase another Omega product/upgrade until such
time as the company undergoes a thorough house cleaning from top down and then
proceeds to fix the critical bugs in current versions. This is what lead me to
Ensign for real-time trading rather than upgrading my SC4 EOD to TS4 and it is
what will lead me to alternative products as the new crop of 32 bit trading
platforms is released.
Earl
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Morge <tmorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: grisham@xxxxxxxxxxx <grisham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Bad initial ticks
>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
>
|