|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Pierre,
I DON'T WANT A KLUDGY WORKAROUND I want a professional software package. I
paid good money and expect a professional product. Obviously this kind of
second-rate solution is acceptable to you or you wouldn't have written this.
It's not acceptable to me.
Though I've spent over 2 decades programming computers, I don't think my
standards are that high.
But then I take a look at your web page and understand why this is an
acceptable solution for you.
I don't know what you trade or how you use Tradestation but for me -- with
the way I use it -- the number of these work arounds is growing and I'm
tired of it.
Or how about the problem with the server not automatically adding contracts
after 250 are being collected real time. Yes there is a work around -- go
in and add by hand -- but for those of us who track more than 250 RT
markets, it's a royal pain.
Manually running Morning Update is unacceptable. Will you replace my data
if something goes wrong with the TS5 conversion? Do you know FOR SURE it
will not affect my data as has been posted. I'm not willing to take that
chance. I want a SUPPORTED solution from Omega!!! I want accountability in
the event something does go wrong.
If I use your suggestion -- and assume that this work around will not
adversely affect data in TS5 -- and something does go wrong, who's
accountable? You? I don't think so. Not Omega because this is not an
OFFICIAL solution to best of my knowledge.
This is an unacceptable work around just like manually doing a morning
update is an unaccetable work around.
This product has more work arounds than the Clinton white house.
I could write a Visual Test script that does all of this automatically but I
shouldn't have to.
When I paid my $2,000 for the product I expected to be suppoted into the
21st century.
I was negotiating in good faith -- regardless of weather I asked the
salesman at the time I bought TS or not -- and I expected Omega to do the
same.
Besides, if I had bought the product in in 1992 would the courts still rule
in favor of Omega claiming that it was my reposnibiyt to verify Y2K
functionality? I don't think so. There's something called "fair and
reasonable" that courts take into consideration. Why should users who
bought in 1998 be held to a different standard then users who bought in
1993?
I don't think it's resonable to expect someone who trades for living to
have been aware or even understand tha Y2K issue in 1993.
They're traders afterall, not computer geeks.
THINK AGAIN.
Brian.
-----Original Message-----
From: Orphelin@xxxxxxx [mailto:Orphelin@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 7:06 AM
To: Omega-list
Subject: Re: y2k woes & omega
Dans un courrier daté du 26/10/98 06:11:48 Heure d6iver Pari48 Madrid,
bnm03@xxxxxxx a écrit :
>
> It's not panic and there's not plenty of time. The concern is real and
> warrented. For futures, options, leaps or any trader who may collect
data
1
> year in advance (ie August 99 PB, or Sep 99 Cattle, etc, or Eurodollars)
> it's really Oct, 1999 and there are only 2-4 months left. That's too
close
> This is becoming a serious problem, given the long term nature of the
data,
> that a more responsible company would have seen coming and dealt with a
long
> time ago (like when TS4 was developed). I don't like the bashing
anymore
> than you do but Omega is inviting this kind of reaction by allowing this
> problem to persist and so far not delivering on their promises.
>
> Brian.
>
WRONG.
Check the archives, the previous message on the workaround to collect data
after Y2000 and do not write things like this anymore
Proving false things with false arguments is truely annoying...and will not
be
a good point for you.
TIA
PO
|