|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I've spoken with TS tech support about this a few times. They said that the
original delivery date was set by marketing and it wasn't realistic, but
it's on it's way RSN.
In the meantime my systems continue to perform, as I, in my blissful
ignorance, edge ever closer to the yawning abyss that only more data can
save me from.
Or can it?
-----Original Message-----
From: carrslem [mailto:carrslem@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 3:27 PM
To: TradeMaker
Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Tradestation 10-Yr Historical Data
As I said, it's all a matter of priorities - and, perhaps, the definition of
"pester". Perhaps I did resort to a bit of hyperbole; after all, I've sent
TS only a single e-mail (a simple request, not a vitriolic tirade) on the
issue and that, in the eyes of most, would not qualify as "pestering".
In the final analysis, however, it is a question of how acutely the need for
this data is felt by list members, and if few have inquired or urged TS on
the matter, then it's not surprising that it is being delayed.
Regards,
Carroll
> Maybe we aren't pesterers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: carrslem [mailto:carrslem@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 3:07 PM
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Tradestation 10-Yr Historical Data
>
>
> Are no TS6/TS7 users on this list interested in backtesting systems on
more
> than 2 years of intraday data??? Omega/Tradestation has been promising
for
> quite some time now to make 10 years of historical intraday data available
> to users of TS6/TS7, but the date of availability keeps sliding away.
>
> I'm told that it is a matter of priorities, that there are other
"features"
> considered more important which are absorbing the resources which would be
> required to make the 10 years of data available. If priority is a
> reflection of what users are asking for, then I must conclude that very
few
> of you are very interested in backtesting on a longer data sample and are
> not pestering TS for this data. Am I correct?
>
> Regards,
> Carroll Slemaker
>
>
>
>
>
>
|