|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Eliot,
I've watched Bob use both DT2 & 3 and he's very quick with it. The software
does look elegant and it does some things easily which can not be done in
other software. However that does not mean that DT is user friendly. As one
example,. you can not edit or move any drawing objects and the process of
erasing and redrawing objects is cumbersome. DT2 gave me consistent problems
by shifting entire swing files one or more pivots and suddenly forgetting
how to read ASCII files which it had been charting previously. The combo
made the software enough of a PIA that I set it aside to wait for DT3.
Yes, I am very familiar with DT3 and am restricted in commenting but suffice
it to say that after many releases I have yet to be able to run it
successfully under NT4. The major issue with multi-monitor support is that
DT makes extensive use of pop-up dialogs for almost everything, however the
dialogs are not constrained within the bounds of the DT application window
much less the relevant chart window. This means that all dialogs will be
split across the bezels of two monitors on dual and quad monitor
configurations, even when the DT app is run on just one of the monitors.
Since the Windows API defaults to placing dialogs within the application
window, they had to do some special programming to circumvent the standard.
>From what I've observed, there seems to be quite a bit of non-standard
interface to the OS or I would not be seeing so many problems with NT. I was
a primary beta site for the Ensign 16/32 conversion and had no such problems
even though Ensign is real-time software. Having some 30+ years experience
in the computer/software industry I have some basis on which to make such
judgements.
It's not my intention to be negative on Bob's software, especially since I
have a great deal of respect for Bob's methods and material, but having
spent a considerable amount of money to purchase the material and attend his
two day workshop, I find myself unable to implement his techniques via his
software.
I can't comment knowledgeably on Get, however I've been told by many traders
that the UI is exceptionally easy to use. Like you, I'm reluctant to run EW
on autopilot. I would very much like the ability to do my own counts and
then see what the software generates. I need to take a look at the latest
version of Get EOD but have not yet gotten to it.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: Eliot Kaplan <eliot@xxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Software: Dynamic Trader
> Earl,
>
> Your comments on DT software etc were very interesting!
>
> I went to Bob Miners LA workshop last weekend, and while I agree with you
on
> the quality of his presentation and materials, I thought the software
> "looked" quite elegant, and relatively friendly. It was version 3 though,
> which he says will be out next month.
>
> Have you seen v3? I wonder if it is significantly different from what you
> have in v2 (I presume). I did not use it myself, but watched him set up
and
> manipulate dozens of charts during the course of the day with relative
ease.
> And my background is in systems & network consulting, i.e. computer
hardware
> & software. It seemed well done to me based on that 1 day experience, but
I
> would clearly defer to your daily experience!
>
> I was also quite interested in your comments about poor multi monitor & NT
> support. I use NT, and am soon to be using 2 displays. I just purchased an
> Appian Jeronimo Pro 8MB 2 port card. What do you use?
>
> Ironically, I have also spent some time working with Advanced GET. I
bought
> it after a seminar about 2-3 months ago. However, due to the fact that
they
> haven't came up with a fully compatible version for FutureSource (my feed)
> TS 4.0, and NT, neither they nor I could get it to run without problems.
So
> I returned it. I even went through the michigaas (excuse my Yiddish
> spelling) of contracting with eSignal, loaded SP2 of TS2000, and while I
> got GET to work in THAT environment, TS2000's flaky behavior killed that
> course of action.
>
> Those issues aside, GET was perhaps the most elegant interface I have ever
> used among dozens of Mac & PC apps over the years, and yet (unrelated) I
> found it seemed to mislabel waves somewhat regularly when left on
> "autopilot".
>
> Now I am NO Elliott wave expert, but I do like Miners manual approach to
> Elliott wave, and if I used Advanced GET without the EW autopilot, is that
a
> valid reason to "lease" GET? The EW elements are the core of the package
are
> they not?
>
> What do you think?
|