|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Ensign Real Time is great and more reliable than TS
----------
> From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Bad initial ticks
> Date: 15 July 1998 01:29
>
> 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
> >
|