|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> 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.
I have yet to see a program that went from 16 to 32 bits and got faster. I
challenge anyone to name one. Put a 16-bit app and its 32-bit brother on
the same machine and the 16-bit version will be faster every time.
The Omega Man
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Massey <bnm03@xxxxxxx>
To: List, Omega <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 1999 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: Prosuite 2000i problems
> 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.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
|