|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3401" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#c0c0c0>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> I understand why everyone is disappointed
about Visual Basic not being one of the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>supported languages......but lets think about this
for a moment. Many of the users</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>on this list are programming in
<EM>VBA </EM><STRONG>NOT </STRONG><EM>VB</EM>, and I don't think Microsoft
has ever </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>intended to use <EM>VBA</EM> for compileing .EXEs
or .DLLs ..... am I right? So that means</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>many would need to do the minor switch to <EM>VB
</EM>if it was supported. Equis </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>may
have</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>been able to have MetaStock
support <EM>VB</EM></FONT><EM><FONT face=Arial>, </FONT></EM><FONT
face=Arial>but chose to support a Microsoft </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Win32s standard....to me this gives the
<STRONG>USER</STRONG> many options of
programming language.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>VBA and VB has (as Ton mentioned) a wide user
base.....but by using the Win32s</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>standard they are opening a door for third party
development which widely uses the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>C++ language. Now if Visual Basic (created by
Microsoft) is not compliant with</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>this "Win32s" standard (also created by Microsoft)
then who is also to blame? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Lets analyze this from a different
perspective......lets suppose that MetStock somehow</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>supported VB but, there were no
other languages supported. Who is to say that with</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> next release of
Visual Basic that MetaStock 7.0 could use the new added/changed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>features of VB? So we would be waiting for a
MetaStock patch/upgrade. But with</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the Win32s standard this shouldn't be a problem .If
the next version of VB supports the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Win32s...then most <FONT face=Arial size=2>of the
complaints will be void.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> It has been mentioned about the
cost of <EM>MetaStock + MetaStock External Function </EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>+ PowerBasic</EM> = 700 or more dollars. If
MetaStock supported Visual Basic, how much</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>would this total package cost? </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2> I think not including the <EM>MetaStock External
Function </EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>with the charting package is good for the CONSUMER
because not everyone is </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>interested in developing there own code....so
should they be required to pay the extra</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cost for adding it with the
software?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Most of you know that I am not affiliated
with MetaStock nor are they asking me</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to promote there product, I am just glad to see
this code limitation that MetaStock</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>had, being addressed. This will be a much better
option than the 2000 dollar TradeStation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I know many of you are saying "Use Microsoft
Excel", perhaps I will when Microsoft </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>improves Excel's poor charts....until
then.......</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Adam Hefner</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Sun Nov 07 19:27:54 1999
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA20116
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:30:10 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA27600
for metastock-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:02:23 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA27594
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:02:20 -0700
Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA10376
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:07:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: from erols.com (209-122-248-112.s366.tnt8.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.248.112])
by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with ESMTP id VAA24361
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 21:52:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <38263B01.432E72E@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 21:52:50 -0500
From: scheier <scheier@xxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Two reasons to hold sugar
References: <001301bf2991$e753f8a0$f231bccc@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------50ACF7BACB458D770CBE0431"
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
<x-html><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Those moving averages look more like they're saying buy than sell.
<p>Steve Karnish wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-1>LIst,</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I've
had many immediate responses to the sugar momentum oscillator post and
I felt I should 'splain it more. I've been long forever and have
traded out of the position a few times to scalp 40 or 50 points.
I feel there is tremendous reasons to believe that the 6.87 to 6.90 should
hold. In most situations, the convergence of three fib moving averages
is enough to stop any move or provide support to a market (especially a
baby bull in the making). I'm "throwing the towel in" tomorrow by
placing stops below fibonacci retracement and the fib moving average convergence.
If the momentum oscillators are suggesting downward pressure (and doing
it in tandem with a bit of serendipity, I don't want to get in the way
of the downdraft).</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I
don't use a mechanical system to trade sugar. If the momentum oscillators
would call sugar's turns with any accuracy, I would have developed a mechanical
trading approach. It does react well to fib retracements and moving
averages. The "seven</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>reasons"
are just that: seven reasons. Add them to 10 or 20 other reasons
to go long or short and sooner or later you will start to understand why
I use mechanical systems in 90% of my trading. Sugar happens to be
one that I'm forced to trade using all the tools. Anyway, my stops
are not far below the 6.88 area.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Steve
Karnish</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Cedar Creek Trading</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>http://www.abbracadabra.com/cybercast/</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Steve
Karnish</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Cedar Creek Trading</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>http://www.abbracadabra.com/cybercast/</font></font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>From ???@??? Sun Nov 07 19:33:16 1999
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA20250
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:37:03 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA27750
for metastock-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:09:34 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA27746
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:09:31 -0700
Received: from mail.fone.net (mail.fone.net [206.168.68.4])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA10392
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:14:28 -0700 (MST)
Received: from fone.net (ftc77.ftc.fone.net [206.168.68.110])
by mail.fone.net (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA06458
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:01:15 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <38263CF8.51D1D426@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 20:01:12 -0700
From: William Hurt <bkhurt@xxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: REMOVE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
PLEASE SEE IF YOU CAN GET US REMOVED FROM YOUR MAILING LIST. YOU JUST
ARE AN IRRITATION BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEEM TO BE REMOVED FROM YOUR MAILING
LIST.
|