|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This will be my FINAL comment on Y2K (for today at least)
WIN95 in my opinion was always Y2K compliant versus what Mr. IBM has stated. I
mean when does IBM ever work with Microsoft? <--(this is a joke, don't take
what I said seriously) When I called up Microsoft to buy WIN95 (I special
ordered it) They told me it was Y2K complaint. All this nonsense about DOS and
the old File Manager is menial. WIN95 is setup INTERNALLY to handle the
4-digit year. That above all else tells me its Y2K compliant.
As far as the client that called Omega and asked the salesperson if TS4.0 was
Y2K compliant. I have a hard time believing this TONY. I was on the phones as
a tech back then when TS4.0 was first being shipped out the door. I don't
recall one instance where we got a call, where a client had asked if the TS4.0
was Y2K compliant. Nor do I recall there being an instance when a salesperson
had told someone this.
In the end:
1. The Server has a work-around. USE IT. If you don't know how then call Tech
Support.
2. I'm sure the Power Editor has a work-around as well. If someone bright
enough could make a Function using EL that incorporates the logic behind
"Windowing". This would solve the PE compliance matter all together. Any
takers?
3. According to Hurricane Mitch Ackles, there will be a fix around 6/99.So
this then leads me to number 4.
4. YOU ALL AGREED to the Software License Agreement whether you all, like it
or not. Therefore please refer to number 1 through 3 if you have a problem
with TS4.0 NOT being Y2K Compliant.
Regards,
UMCANE01
NICE TRY "FILTER" Frank!
There is more than one way to skin a cat(trader)
I can come up with as many Tag names as I like. That's the beauty of AOL.
Cya!!
Return-Path: <omega-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by
air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v50.22) with SMTP; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:05:08
1900
Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48])
by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id KAA14581;
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:04:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smartlst@xxxxxxxxx)
by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA25984;
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:02:31 -0800
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:02:26 -0800
From: Orphelin@xxxxxxx
Message-ID: <babd08de.3635dff8@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:00:08 EST
To: Omega-list <Omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: y2k woes & omega
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows 95 sub 129
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id
IAA25882
Resent-Message-ID: <"AdOTy3.0.6L6.IwUDs"@mx1>
Resent-From: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailing-List: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx> archive/latest/27083
X-Loop: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: omega-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dans un courrier daté du 27/10/98 06:39:40 Heure d6iver Pari40 Madrid,
bnm03@xxxxxxx a écrit :
>
> Pierre, I like you. You have sent out some pretty innovative stuff
> (momentum and volatiltiy) and I admire that. However, I must say your your
> blind and narrow sighted views regarding Omega and the Y2K issue want to
> make me puke. You make so many rediculous comments to my lasy post I don't
> know where to begin. Most are beneath comment. When I read your letter I
> feel like I'm floating in a sea of BS and nievety. I might add you post
> some really good spam, day in and out -- but hey that's cool we all have to
> make a living some how. I will attempt to comment on some of your
> statements:
>
The best thing to do with provocation is to avoid to reply.
You should know that I use this when some people go too far.
> You wrote:
> "An acceptable solution is something that works as expected."
>
> Precisely my point. Hence the reference to you web page -- it doesn't work
> as expected. Look at Doug Deming's web page and you see a good web site.
> It's easy enough for even a newbie to follow -- right to the part where you
> plop the cash down . I hope this American tip helps you French software
> guys -- the way it has since software was invented.
>
I'm a newbie in web page design. OK. You are right.
The web page is not designed for newbies.
It has a lot of information on it, you may think too much, but it's my choice,
and I respect it.
I was only referring to the contents ( where we are not exactly newbies).
I have at least three weak points (web desing, frenchglish (TM) language that
I have some difficulties to impose, and an AOL account that you do not like
-me too-).
Concerning AOL, I subscribed to it because of the Omega Forum on AOL 4 years
ago.
I still use this Email address because it's widely know, and also to
facilitate Earl Adamy mail filtering.
I used also Compuserve and Msn, but never for Email.
(
Self snip of my provocative repies and yours that worked more than expected,
as usual.
)
> "If you are trading 250 markets, why do you make a so dramatic story of a
> piece
> of software that you own since 1992, and that should be paid with you
> benefits, I hope for you."
>
> I can't believe you wrote this. There are so many trading methods that
> trade across say 16 or 22 futures markets that need to be backtested in
real
> time, I can't even begin to list them all. Let's pick one though. Take
Bob
> Buran's volatility breakout system. It trades 16-22 FUTURES markets
(THAT"S
> F-U-T-U-R-E-S -- THAT's IN THE FUTURE -- THAT"S like 3-6 months out or even
> farther). If I want to back test in real time across those markets then I
> need to multiply 18 * (say) 6 (I'll be conservative and collect every
> other market in CL or HG or NG or HU). You do this for 4-5 Currencies, 3-4
> major ags, a 3-4 Indexes, a couple rate markets over 9 months time and you
> can begin see that we're fast aproaching the 250 barrier. What about stock
> options? Even if I want to watch optoins on 20 stocks and collect data for
> them. There are say 6 options for each stock that means 120 markets to
> collect data for. What if I want real time crack spread data. What about a
> Ham Sandwhich spread in real time. Again I need multiple I prefer to test
> in real time data, not end of data. EOD is too coarse so I need the real
> time data. I don't trade all the markets -- DUH!!! -- I collect data as
> I'm sure thousands of traders out there do -- and store so that if some day
> I want it, I have IT.
This makes sense for options.
Unfortunately, you will not have your yk2 patch tomorrow.
So, we need to be pragmatic and live with what exists and not bother the list
too much with a problem that I KNOW there is no simple solution, and none will
be available very soon.
If you backup your data and your portfolio, delete your log files, I think
that the risk is very low.
>
> THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY YOUR ARGUMENT CAN'T HOLD WATER. YOU FAIL
> TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERNET NEEDS THAN YOURS AND
> THAT THE Y2K WILL NOT AFFECT THEM THE WAY IT WILL NOT AFFECT YOU. YOU ONLY
> TRADE 2 MARKETS BUT I TRADE MORE. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ME PRETENTIOUS, STUPID
> OR ANY OF THE OTHER 5TH-GRADE SENTIMENTS YOU LEVELED AT ME. IT MAKES ME
MAD
> AS HELL THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND TIME AND ENERGY TO DEVELOP YET
> ANOTHER WORK AROUND . THIS IS TIME AND ENERGY I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SPEND
JUS
> T CAUSE OMEGA DOESN'T KNOW OR DOESN'T CARE TO ENGINEER THEIR SOFTWARE
> CORRECTLY.
>
My arguments are not here to hold water.
They are here to explain that you may live with what you have, and neither me
or you have the power to make things change.
The problem has been posted, the workaroud exists, it may have some drawback
for you, but the situation is as is.
We have the power to destroy the Omega List, and to bother 95% of the users,
this is a sure thing.
> I only hope the software you sell to people is more versitle than your
> perspective.
>
No doubt on it.
Its a very nice piece of software accordingto my biased opinion.
You may have a look on it: The Assistant for Expert Traders Version2 (free
trial) has been put on the web this night.
You can even use it with your own unseen data and your own indicators.
> Brian.
>
> You Wrote:
> "(or we are really stupid, enough to ignore our poor state...)"
>
> Yes.
>
No progress has been made here since I wrote this.
Rgds
-Pierre Orphelin
www.sirtrade.com
|