|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Comments below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Elden [mailto:eldenworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 1999 10:10 AM
> To: List, Omega
> Subject: RE: Prosuite 2000i problems
>
>
> Still, you would think that even the
> worst conversion from 16 to 32 bits shouldn't make the program slower by
> 200%.
>
> Well I was waiting for 2000k because it was supposed to be 32
> bit. I thought
> it would fly, but it drags. Big Dissapointment.
agreed.
>
>
> Look at the system report screen and tell me that doesn't look
> and feel like
> a VB app.
>
> The 2000k system report is portfolio optimizer embedded in tradestation
> instead of being an outside module like it was un Ts4. By the
> way, have you
> ever tried to save a system results report in TS2000 to a file
> and then copy
> the text out to an email for instance. It can't be done. Big
> Mistake there.
I don't know how you're doing this but I can attach the XLS file created by
system report to an email. I don't know what would happen if you don't have
excel. I guess Omega assumed everybody and his brother would have Excel.
Not exactly an invalid assumption but not entirely valid either. Still it
looks good in excel and should be useful.
>
> If the multitasking in
> Win32 (TS5) is not handled properly or there are more threads other things
> in the background in TS5 than in 4, then the system won't run as fast.
>
> Can't begin to comment on that one.
>
>
>
> What's another reason? Perhaps there's just more data to load in TS5 than
> in TS4.
>
> We are talking about 10 years of daily ascii data. o,h,l,c,v,oi. Futures
> data , that is all. No symbols in the server portfolio. None. You should
> have seen how slow it ran when I had symbols in there. Geez. I totally
> stripped it down to the bare bones.
>
Can't say why for sure.
>
>
> Omega probably didn't realize that parts of the
> program would run as slow as they do but once they built it and realized
> oops it doesn't run as fast we thought it would, it was too late.
> It may be
> a windows issue, it may not be.
>
> What they should have done is said oops, do it over. If we cant make a 32
> bit prog faster than a 16 bit prog, then we have done something wrong. End
> of story. Do it right or don't do it at all.
I agree that Omega should have paid more attention to speed. However, I
don't think doing it over was a realistic option before release. Wheather
you want to admit or not, Cruz did the right thing, from a business
standpoint, by releasing the software sooner than later. When TS5 was
released the stock went from 1.25-1.15 to over 15 bucks -- sucky
optimazation and all. It's quite possible that lots of Omega employees got
rich, very rich. I don't need to go on about what even a 10K investement at
a 1.25 is worth now. Bill Cruz did the right thing from Omega's standpoint.
he boosted employee moral which translates into more productivity and most
likely an overall better app, he kept the company healthy, he has more money
to work with now to attact talent, he bought himself more time to make TS5
the kind of program you want it to be. Sure some customers are pissed but
not all and he has time to make TS5 better to win over the people that are
angry. If you're an Omega investor, he did the right thing.
>
> I have yet to see another program that went from 16 bit to 32 bit and got
> slower. I am sure they are out there, but I havent seen them, and I have
> seen alot of programs.
>
>
> Take heart though. As machines become faster and faster in the
> not-so-distant future, the performance inadequacies of TS5 will fade away.
> In the meantime, there's TS4.
>
> It doesnt make sense that we should need a cray to do in 32 bit what was
> done just fine in 16 bit.
Stay with TS4 if speed is your primary concern. Even if they did a straight
across conversion, the speed differences wouldn't be THAT noticeable,
espcially on a faster machine. Probably at some point, a bottleneck in the
system (serial port, somewhere) would prevent the system from running
faster. You could only go so fast.
I can't say that I see TS5 being slower in all categories. For instance, my
charts load way faster in TS5 than in 4 and I have more symbols in TS5.
Also, there's more functionality in TS5, more eye candy, and if it can get
stable, more power. Those are very marketable features. TS5 looks great and
that helps sell a program.
Forget all the bells and whistles. Just
> plain core
> functionality. What is more likely is that someone will write a superior
> program to Ts5 and then Omega will fade away.
Perhaps, but in 7 years that hasn't happened in an indsutry that loves to
compete.
>
>
> d
>
>
>
|