|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Alot of people are going to be upset with me for writing this note....That's
ok.
I've been a contract software development consultant for 15 years. I've
worked almost entirely for Fortune 100 companies on a varied range of
projects and various technologies. I plan on purchasing TS5 as soon as it's
available, but if I was going to stay with TS4, here's what I would prefer
as a TS4 user:
- I would have wanted the TS5 server direction re: Y2K issues to be
designed, coded, tested, and significant tests performed BEFORE any work was
even thought about vis-a-vis a Y2K patch for TS4. Why? Because even if my
short-term plan is to stay with TS4, I would want that patch to provide an
easier upgrade path to TS5 should I choose to upgrade to TS5.
- I would want the technical resources working the TS4 Y2K issue to be
among the best Omega resources (i.e., those resources currently working on
TS5)
In other words, it's because of the technical resource issues involved that
I would prefer, from a technical point of view, to have TS5 on the market
first.
I'd be very surprised if these two points above were not significant
elements in Omega's decision to build the TS5 product before producing the
TS4 Y2K patch. I'd be even more surprised if there weren't several more
reasons why from a technical viewpoint alone, this general approach made the
most sense.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the
easiest way for Omega to make TS4 Y2K compliant was to wrap the new TS5
server in a set of different clothes and then write a new api to this server
from the various user interface portions of the TS4 product. They're not
going to tell you upfront that this is what they're considering but I bet
you that this has either already been seriously considered or is still being
considered. But, then, if I'm right about this, for them to determine the
best approach to making TS4 Y2K compliant they actually have to have the new
TS5 server software designed or even completed.
**************
A product of the quality of TS doesn't get produced by mediocre technical
folks who blindly follow the kind of money-grubbing leaders that the
Brothers Cruz are made out to be sometimes. I'd bet money that if called on
to do so, Omega could produce a set of documents in court, written by these
technical folks when the issue of software development priority was being
considered, that would demonstrate it (Omega) had taken what it saw as a
"responsible [technical] approach" to the Y2K issue vis-a-vis its current
customers. I can't imagine that you'd be able to defeat these kinds of
technical folks and the kind of documentation they'll arrive with in
court...
Putting pressure on Omega via the media is a completely different matter and
a good idea. What I think you need to do is to get on CNBC and discuss how
NOT having a TS4 Y2K solution ACTUALLY does harm to your ability to make a
living as a trader RIGHT NOW. (In other words, you're not screaming and
waving your arms merely because of a potential impact next year; instead
your
"trading for a living" is RIGHT NOW dependent on having data on those
outside contract months.)
Steven Buss
sbuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
Walnut Creek, CA, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Morge <tmorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: OfficeOfThePresident@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<OfficeOfThePresident@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Janette Perez
<Janette.Perez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
<omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dennis Boyle <dennis.boyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:55 PM
Subject: It's time....
>Mr. Cruz:
>
>I am a professional trader. I always try to help my fellow trader. I am not
>known as a basher of Omega products. I own TradeStation 4.0 and Supercharts
4.0
>and I owned prior versions of both.
>
>It's time for Omega to start treating all of us, your current users, with
>respect, Mr. Cruz. We want a year 2000 compliant patch on our existing
product.
>And we refuse to wait until you have finished using your resources on a new
>product. We are not going to spend another dime on an Omega product until
Omega
>makes our existing products year 2000 compliant. You have insulted all of
us by
>telling us you will release a patch after you release a new product. The
fees
>from our existing products paid for the research for TradeStation version
>5...Now at least fix our existing product.
>
>And fix it now, Mr. Cruz. We are all actively trading contracts on the
>exchanges. Fix our products now. Telling us you will release a patch after
you
>release TradeStation version 5 is not good enough. Give us a patch now. We
trade
>for a living and you are threatening our living. We don't want to sue Omega
for
>their lack of responsibility, but we will not spend another dime for your
>products until we have a version 4 year 2000 patch. And if it takes legal
action
>to get you to put your resources where they belong, we will take legal
action.
>Enough is enough. Treat us like the good customers we have been and fulfill
your
>responsibility. Now.
>
>Timothy Morge
>
|