|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 Orphelin@xxxxxxx wrote:
> As the code was readable, some users tried to copy only the ASC file directly
> to TS directory .
> Of course , this produced a major erroe when running TS.
How so? - uncompiled code is not used in TS. Major? Hardly, compared to
the inconvenience of ela files.
> > > also to protect the SC functions from being used and modified without TS
> >
> > Aaahhhh - the *real* reason comes out, after all -- make it proprietary
> > and more difficult for users...
>
> TS = 2399.40 $
> SC = 395.00$
>
> Do you see a difference between two numbers above ?
Of course - that is *exactly* my point. Omega does not care how much
inconvenience they heap on users as long as *they* make money doing it.
They had a problem with their watered-down TS (trying to compete with
Metastock). They couldn't let it be too powerful or they would lose
sales of TS, so they introduced a *major* inconvenience to get around
*their* marketing problem.
> > If they were ASCII, one could do some very nice things. For example, I
> > have about 4 Gigs of reference material, in > 20,000 files. If I'm
> > looking for, say, "close stop", I can find ALL instances of that phrase in
> > the 4 Gigs in only a few seconds, and scan through them very easily. If I
> > come upon the code I need, I can easily copy & paste it. *Very* fast, but
> > NOT with those awful .ela files.
> >
>
> See above.
Ahhh - it appears that you, as well as Omega, don't care about providing
convenience to TS users -- I'm beginning to understand your perspective
after all. If I'm wrong, please list at least three things that Omega
could do (that are NOT in TS5, to avoid any more Omega-can-do-no-wrong
comments) to make things easier for users. With all your TS experience,
there must be at least that many <grin>.
> > > OMZ format changes every major version, so it's not designed to be a
> > standard.
> >
> > Hey - just post the new format on the Omega web site. No problem...
> >
>
> I'm a TradeStation user, not the product designer.
But would that not be easy to do and be a nice service to sophisticated
users willing to take the risks?
Is it so hard for you to admit that Omega could do something to make
lives easier for users?
> > Does this mean I can add contracts and data, reset expired contracts,
> > add/import data to expired contracts, edit bad ticks with a Access/VB "bad
> > tick finder", etc?
> >
> > Can I do these with the server and the API?
> >
>
> Yes, but not directly with Access or VB
I agree. It is so easy to link VB and Access that I forget the
distinction you are making. My apologies.
> You need to use a C compiler with the API.
(VB <---> Access) <---> C-compiled DLL <---> API
This is more along the lines I was thinking about, IF you have to go
through the API.
Would it not be easier if they simply revealed the data base format? Then:
(VB <---> Access) <---> data base
> Access reads the symbol universe, not the OMZ f or DAT files.
I know, that was part of my point...
I am saddened to learn that you, also, apparently do not seem to care
about providing the most convenience and support for users. If you do, it
is never evident in any of your communications.
But perhaps my conclusion is wrong, and you could point out the messages
where you have suggested things Omega could do to help users more than
they do.
And *please*, no more "TS5 has everything anyone could want" answers...
Larry
|