|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Guess you missed this one (highlighted >>>). Before you open your mouth,
check your archives, Omega "I don't know jack-sh*t" Alumni.
There's no defense against lying Omega employees, now is there?
-Tony Haas
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 17:37:44 -0700
From: sptradr@xxxxxxxxx
X-Sender: sptradr@xxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (16)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 14:47:05
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Y2K - Some Final Comments
Resent-From: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailing-List: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx> archive/latest/24153
X-Loop: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Resent-Sender: omega-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx
I think that this discussion has been calmer than those in the past (don't
believe me? check the archives!). I'm not mad at anyone and no one has
anything reason to apologize to anyone for personal attacks. A lot of it
has been in good fun.
>>>But I spoke the truth about the Omega salesperson who assured me (before I
>>>bought TS five years ago) that version 4 would be 2000 compliant.
>>>Unfortunately, verbal promises are meaningless and that person no longer
>>>works there. It's time to move on and not dwell on past deceptions.
I checked out Metastock Pro (www.equis.com) this weekend and it's
interesting. Yes, it's 2000 compliant; yes, it supports BMI datafeed; yes
it's a fully 32 bit program and supports multithreading. The built-in link
to Office97 is interesting for supporting NN apps/systems in Excel. Best
of all, it comes with a 60 day money-back guarantee (in writing, but
collecting maybe a different matter). So, as a TS backup, the price is
right ($995) and the comparable TS functionality appears to be good for my
purposes. But first I'll check out the metastock discussion list etc. and
try to scope out the problems/glitches/bugs.
The newer products are running hard and fast at TS. I think the winners
will be the ones that support open archectiture and solid network
functionality. Only time will tell.
-Tony Haas
matt gorman wrote:
>Is TS4.0 Y2K compliant?
>
>Now did you Tony? I think NOT.
|