| Welcome Guest, please sign in to participate in a discussion. | Search | Active Topics | |
Registered User
Joined: 12/31/2005
Posts: 2,499
|
In general over the course of the beta test period the quality of the builds has been very sound, hovever over the last few build there have been some 2 clunkers. Release 182 the most recent. It seem that the quality control on the releases has been a little less rigorous of late.
As Yoda would say "A disturbing trend, 2 bad releases does not make." however given that this is the latter stages of the beta, performance degradations and capability failures, (True Markers in build 182), should not be occurring.
The quality of the releases should be even more critical as some users, rightly or wrongly, are starting to depend on V5 as there primary tool. It is frustrating to have a primary feature broken for almost a week.
I do appreciate the number of fronts that are still in transition. The new capabilities are fine additions. I also appreciate how much effort has gone into V5 since the start of the Beta. V5 has made great progress. Beta periods can be like combat duty for the developers and quality assurance people, and after almost 4 months of steady releases a bit of fatigue may be expected.
It is critical though that the high quality of the release be maintained. I'm hoping that as the beta winds down that proper quality assurance will be maintained.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 816
|
What he said!!
Bob Mc
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/14/2005
Posts: 628
|
The need for side-by-side operation of multiple versions has been brought up before, and I know of no technology or magic or perfect diligence that has come along to invalidate the reasons why this is a critically necessary capability.
It is a FACT of software development that new releases of complex software sometimes (always?) introduce new bugs. When this happens (not if), user's need to be able to go back to the previous version that worked for them, right away!
SF is not a mere toy! People want to use it as a primary tool for serious financial purposes. Having every new release be a crap-shoot that might break a financially critical workflow, for an undetermined amount of time (while the need for a fix is recognized, and something is done about it) is simply unacceptable for any use but hobbyist use. (Yes, some people play with their money as a hobby ... )
Side-by-side operation is clearly possible to have. Many programs offer this. If the program wasn't worth running in the first place, it might not be worth the effort to implement side-by-side operation. However, once one concludes that the program IS worth running on a continuing basis, side-by-side operation becomes a needed priority item.
So, is SF worth running on a continuing basis (yet)? 
or not? 
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 37
|
I understand the need for dual operations but at some time in the life of a release there comes a time when new features are put on hold for the next release and quality is the focus until full release.
I think we have had far too extensive of a beta period for version 5 and we need to put quality as the single focus.
It also appears to an outside observer that the engineering resources may be stretched thin with the need to support three platforms.
I think the marketing department needs to develop a white paper on when/how/why a user would use the three different platforms. FreeStockCharts/Telechart/StockFinder.
If we are to have a webbased platform, which I think FreeStockCharts is then it should work with all the smart phone mobile devices.
MauiTrader
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/14/2005
Posts: 628
|
QUOTE ... we need to put quality as the single focus.
Basically, I agree.
Pretty much every session I have with SF ends when/because something goes wrong (crashes, stops working, gets corrupted, etc.). An SF that continues to behave this way is problematic and minimally useful. OTOH, with exactly today's capabilities, an SF that was rock-solid would be extremely useful.
Still, once SF achieves a highly reliable build (if it ever does), chances are one of the following builds will introduce a new problem. At that point, having side-by-side operation becomes very important.
|
|
Administration
Joined: 9/18/2004
Posts: 3,522
|
QUOTE (progster) QUOTE ... we need to put quality as the single focus.
Basically, I agree.
Pretty much every session I have with SF ends when/because something goes wrong (crashes, stops working, gets corrupted, etc.). An SF that continues to behave this way is problematic and minimally useful. OTOH, with exactly today's capabilities, an SF that was rock-solid would be extremely useful.
Still, once SF achieves a highly reliable build (if it ever does), chances are one of the following builds will introduce a new problem. At that point, having side-by-side operation becomes very important.
This is our current goal. The feature set is locked and we're doing all the little performance and stability tweaks required for release.
Ken Gilb (Kuf)
Chief Software Engineer - Worden Brothers Inc.
Try/Catch - My RealCode Blog
|
|
|
Guest-1 |