|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Just so you know I would definitely vote against Ts2k even though I paid
good money for it. Also I have no hesitation to admit I blew it when that
is the case. I use Ts2k only because I cant get anything better at this
time, not because I like it. Ts2k's limitations and shortcomings are
significant and for TASC or Omega to suggest that simply because I or anyone
else uses a product that they would endorse it in a positive manner is
misleading. Also to counter your final point, I have been using Tradestation
since 1992. I understand the program and know how to use it; the
limitations about which I complain are all admitted by Omega. Omega refuses
to fix core functionality defects choosing instead to lure newcomers with
silly gimmicks and TASC panders to advertisers. We need more competition in
data and software vendors and objectivity in magazine publishers.
Bill Wood
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Funkhousers [mailto:l-funkho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 8:15 PM
> To: Chris Baker
> Cc: Omega List; John Sweeney S&C
> Subject: Re: TASC Reader Awards
>
>
> While some smell a sinister plot by TASC when it comes to their "Reader's
> Choice" awards there is a much more simple, and I think more reasonable,
> interpretation.
>
> "Nobody votes against what they have paid good money for."
>
> Even if the owner of program "X" looked at competitive offerings BEFORE he
> decided to buy "X" he concluded that "X" was best or he wouldn't
> have bought
> it. Additionally, he probably hasn't looked at other programs
> since he bought
> "X" -- he's probably been too busy trying to get "X" to do
> what he wants.
>
> And with Omega's admittedly better than average marketing
> programs there are
> probably a lot more Omega users out there by some factor of 3 or 4.
>
> When asked, and I don't know how they are really asked, do you
> think that any
> of these owners are going to say something else is better? Most
> of us don't
> like admitting to ourselves, let alone the general public, that
> we blew it, or
> the problems that we are having are not really due to our not fully
> understanding the program.
>
>
|