|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Daniel, do you do book reviews as well?
If so, is Pring's "Introduction To Technical Analysis" any count?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Martinez
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: QP2.x Alternatives.
There are at least 2 things QP should improve on. Their scanning program
and
Excel support. Their scanning program is basically 3 years old. It doesn't
support array's, strings, or global variables. The arrays should be able to
hold tickers, or numbers. It doesn't support string comparisons such as "IF
symbol="INTC" THEN" or "IF IndustrySector ="Capital Goods &Services" THEN".
Global variables would be for storing data from symbol to the next during a
scan. For example, you should be to have an array which stores symbols,
then be
able to do calculations based on relative strength comparisons. A relative
strength comparison with !COMP would be useful.
Even though you can access QP 2.2 in Excel, there are no TA functions
available. It is a major bother finding, debugging, and setting up a
function
library. XLTOPS was a TA library for Excel but it wasn't tailored to access
QP
data. Unfortunately, they went out of business. If QP had a robust
scanner,
you wouldn't even need Excel.
Daniel.
Peter Gialames wrote:
> PowerInvestor screens fundamentals, PowerTech screens technicals. I used
> this about 2 years ago and found their data to be awful.
>
> I don't think you can get PowerTech without purchasing PowerInvestor (that
> was my experience two years ago so this might have changed). And both
> programs are separate - you can't screen fundamentals in PowerTech or scan
> technicals in PowerInvestor (again an experience of mine that might have
> changed in two years).
>
> The scanning program in PowerInvestor was nice - a VB type application.
It
> was very slow though and with the data problem was not very reliable.
>
> As far as QP pricing structure goes - this change has been in place for
> almost a year now. Are you saying that you have a problem paying $7/month
> ($84/year) more than you were originally? I've told you my experience
with
> AAII and you get what you pay for - QP is worth the extra $7.
>
> As far as Lionel's post - while I agree that there has not been a more
> active voice from tech support, I do not agree with his statement that it
is
> deteriorating. While they do not answer all questions publicly on the QP
> list (I have yet to see Lionel ask one public ally), I have found them to
be
> very responsive to questions.
>
> Lionel said that he finds their responses to be "a bit snotty" and I would
> ask for an example. Maybe he received something privately, but I totally
> disagree with him on this.
>
> As far as TC2000 goes check http://home.earthlink.net/~jfritch/TC2000.html
> for an evaluation. John Fritch has some doubts about QP awhile back and
did
> some comparing.
>
> This is just my opinion and as you can tell I am very happy with QP. If
you
> are not there are other data vendors out there. There has even been some
> praise for Reuters from a very active QP user.
>
> Again ... just my opinion,
> Peter Gialames
|