|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I may not know piss about the TS2000i charting or powereditor capabilities,
but I do know (collaborated by several real time beta testers) that the
current server version processes ticks based on the computer clock and not
datafeed time stamps. Also, it uses nearly exclusively the BMI and Signal
servers, a suspicion confirmed as a fact last Friday. This a BIG step back
to the cheesy DOS programs of yesteryear. If you can't get ticks processed
correctly, then any kind of fancy charting or powereditor programs Omega
throws at us ain't worth a piss.
Hey, it's a wake-up call to "you know who"...Omega had better get its act
together because today's traders are tired with continuing software
bastardization and backwardation...8 page glossy ads and nation-wide dog &
pony shows notwithstanding.
Tony Haas
We're not gonna to take it
Never did and never will
We don't have to take it
Gonna break it
Gonna shake it
Let's forget it better still
Tommy....The Who
Ron Augustine wrote:
>I did some beta testing a few versions back for TS-5. I ran it with
>real-time data from BMI and was running on a Pentium 120 with only 32 Meg
>Ram (the only machine I had available for beta at the time). Even though
>this machine did not even come close to the minimum specs suggested for
>TS-5, I had none of the problems that I saw re-posted here from MB. I know
>that later versions were much better and faster than the ones that I tested,
>but I didn't have time to follow up with them.
>
>He mentioned system crashes and he was also touting an over-clocked 300Mhz
>Celeron set-up here a while back. The over-clocked Celerons are notorious
>for not being able to run Win-95/98 and NT without serious crashes due to
>over-heating of the CPU. Assuming any of MBs comments were valid (a serious
>stretch by anyone's imagination), he is probably running a cock-roached
>version of one of the early betas and nothing close to the final release--
>which is not yet out.
>
>Rather than asking questions based on speculation that nobody has the
>information to answer, a better question might be why anyone here would be
>foolish to listen to MB?
>_________________________________________________
>At 07:00 PM 2/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>>>I don't consider third party comments via a beta testers list as valid
>>either. We will have to wait for the answers.
>>>
>>>Tony Haas
|