|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
UCAM wrote
"The rest of your reply is Sour-Grapes. If you were a true computer-geek,
you
would side with Omega and understand and realize the dilemmas that they are
facing as a software company, not a broker, not an online service, not a
data
provider or anything else of that arena."
I've worked professionally with PC's for a long time and have been a RT
trader using TS for several years (block # in low 7K's) yet I differ with
you in your opinion of Omega's responsibility for Y2K. What I suspect is
probably happening inside Omega right now is classic brain-drain scenario
where the company looses more and more key developmers and support
individuals as share price pluments.
However, Omega is still to fault here because they were not more proactive
in solving this HUGE issue well before this point. They were more concerned
with selling it rather than providing a stable platform. Y2K compatibility
shuold have been built into TS4 and the issue resolved when originally
developed and at the latest a year ago before the situation got this far.
Any CS grad could have fortold of this problem, why couldn't' Omega and
dealt with it before TS4 was released or soon thereafter? Omega could have
used just A FRACTION of that initial offering money to outsource the project
a year ago. Don't cry about tradesecrets and all that BS because there are
legal channels to deal with that other ways around it. So why wasn't it
outsourced -- at least part of it -- if Omega couldn't find enough in-house
developers? Why wasn't it dealt with before it ever got this far? Because
sadly, Omega has a history of poor planning in the egineering department --
but their geniuses in the sales department since that's where their dollars
go-- that's why. Yet due to that lack of early planning, I and thousands of
other traders have to use yet another work around that may or may not work
completely.
Even Omega's position on Y2K is not going to solve my problem of being able
to seamlessly collect RT data a year out and I'll be really surprised if we
see a patch by June. I don't want to have to switch over to another program
and start from scratch. I've invested TOO MUCH with Tradestation and Omega
knows that which is another reason why they sit on their hands. Mark Brown's
comparison of Equis's leadership to Omega's in terms of intregrity to
clients wasn't that far off.
UCAM... wrote
"EVER HEARD OF A TAPE BACKUP??? "
Since you seem to be speaking on behalf of Omega, does this mean I have to
go out and buy a 2Gig Jaz drive and another $120 cartridge or another
hardrive or a tape drive or any additional piece of hardware so I can have
peace of mind when I upgrade with the kludged data? I'll also have to pay
for installation since I don't like to dick around hardware and hope that it
doesn't break anything else in my system before I upgrade to 5.0?
Dissasemble, drive down, drop off PC, pick it up, etc. What a pain! I
don't want to hassle with this shit. I want a software program that does
what it's supposed to do the way its supposed to do it. If additoinal
hardware is needed, then there should be a requirements list stating so. I
doubt Omega would publish such a list yet there is still the real
possibility that I could loose my data using this kludgy system. I
shouldn't even be at this point AND YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU"VE EVER BUILT REAL
COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE!!!
So for those of us who don't backup our data, this isn't an option. DID YOU
CONSIDER THAT?
So I fault Omega for not having this problem resolved sooner and for putting
me in a position where it will not be business as usual -- seamlessly
collecting data and using that data to trade -- through 2000. Any company
with a modicum of concern for their clients (and engineering forsight) would
have resolved this long ago.
And you know that!
Brian.
PS: Why do you use AOL anyway? I've never a met someone I would consider an
advanced PC consultant pulling down over 3 digits and hour (that's what you
said isn't it?) using AOL. They all know there are far better ISP's out
there and for less (but price shouldn't be a concern because you're rich).
AOL markets to inexperienced users.
-----Original Message-----
From: UMCANE01@xxxxxxx [mailto:UMCANE01@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 10:47 AM
To: fritz@xxxxxxxx; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: y2K woes & omega
<< Message: RE: y2K woes & omega (1.29 KB) >> Sorry "dude",
But I believe you're mistaken about Win95. Just check the available "date
formats" that exist within the Win95 environment. You'll find that a four-
digit year is available. Once in this mode, Win95 is Y2K compliant. Any
other
questions?
The rest of your reply is Sour-Grapes. If you were a true computer-geek, you
would side with Omega and understand and realize the dilemmas that they are
facing as a software company, not a broker, not an online service, not a
data
provider or anything else of that arena. They make a charting software for
use
with Technical Analysis specifically System Testing. From what I've heard,
the
charting module is not having a problem. It's the Server (which has a work-
around, something common in the software industry, which you should be
familiar with, being a Geek since 1973) and the Power Editor which I am sure
knowing the huge spectrum that EL covers would have a work-around as well.
If
one knew how to write EL well enough? As far as the rest of the arguments
regarding "I'm going to lose my data if/when I go up to TS5.0"
EVER HEARD OF A TAPE BACKUP???
Any other insights??? BRING THEM ON!!! BRING THEM ON!!
UMCANE01
|