|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.
If they had taken this approach 3 years ago with TS2000i, their stock
wouldn't be hanging around $1 a share now.....wait, it's up to $3 1/2 !!!!
I think the market is saying what you said....they are improving and maybe
TS7 will be the big release that TS2000i should have been !!
I like the way they beat-up on Interactive Brokers with even lower e-mini
rates.....that was really a surprise !
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Johnson [mailto:cmjohnsonxx@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: Omega-List
> Subject: TradeStation 7
>
>
> I have been following the progress of TradeStation 7 by reading
> the posts on
> TradeStation World.
>
> Through that forum, TradeStation is conducting the public quality
> assurance
> testing and bug resolution in a transparent and open way that is
> helpful and
> informative. Communications seem relatively good and progress seems to be
> steady. Features such as additional intraday data for back testing are not
> yet in place. It is possible that in some months the product may be in a
> usable state.
>
> It would have been better had TradeStation had not created confusion by
> characterizing the commencement of what is clearly public
> alpha/beta testing
> as the "release" of the software, which one would reasonably
> expect to mean
> making available thoroughly tested, debugged, usable software with all
> advertised features, especially considering the heavy marketing of
> TradeStation 7.
>
> It would have been better had TradeStation devoted more internal resources
> to quality assurance testing prior to involving their customers in such
> testing.
>
> It is not clear that TradeStation has the resources or procedures in place
> to do "regression testing" -- thorough exercise of the software
> after a set
> of bug fixes to ensure that the bug fixes do not create new problems or
> reintroduce old ones that were previously fixed. Some of the problems that
> have been found by users would not have gotten past a thorough test suite,
> leading me to guess that TradeStation internally either has no
> test suite or
> has one that is not very thorough.
>
> The art and science of software quality assurance is well
> developed and well
> understood in some segments of the software industry. Arguably
> too stringent
> a level of quality assurance procedures could be cost ineffective, but I
> suspect that some degree of improvement in the perhaps not
> stringent enough
> quality assurance procedures at TradeStation would have net benefit to the
> fortunes of that company.
>
> In any event, if one accepts the current activities for what they are, the
> process TradeStation has put into place is a clear improvement
> over the past
> in terms of transparency, accessibility, timeliness, thoroughness,
> responsiveness, and level of commitment, and may result in a good product,
> although stronger internal quality assurance procedures would
> significantly
> strengthen the process and create a higher level of confidence in the
> stability of the product and the likelihood that bug fixes will not create
> additional problems.
>
>
|