I see things this way, MD, IRT, SC, are all platforms directed to profiling, order flow tools in general whereas NT, MC, and others were all built before those tools became popular. Their attentions was towards MACD's, RSI's, SO's, ADX's, MA's and alike. I'm sure that the majority of their clients continue to program stuff using those indicators.
For them to change shift, MC for example, needs to make significant changes to their platform (I'm using their own words) so they can retain the necessary data to calculate bid/ask volume delta, footprint and even volume profile.
So they tend to be very slow changing gears. I think every software house has problems when it needs to make structural changes to their platform. The consequences towards the overall performance might be unpredictable.
Platforms that were built to receive the necessary data can easily add new tools, new functions to their platform. That's why IRT and SC have become so well known. They are able to generate upgrades within days and SC is even able to generate within hours.
For this to happen, and of course we are talking about very small changes, the platform shouldn't be very complex in terms of code. If I remember correctly, I read that that MC has 6 millions lines of code. That is something beyond my imagination. For you to change your platform structural and make sure that everything continues to work properly shouldn't be a very easy task to do. Certainly that should be one of the reasons of their slowness in applying some features and of course their own agenda that is usually contrary to their users.
Surely that NT suffers from the same problem.
Meanwhile, due to their slowness, we search elsewhere. Some end up ditching these old platforms, others continue using both since they compliment each other because, lets face it, it's impossible to have every single tool in one platform. We'd like to, it would be cheaper and no time wasted on learning how to work with the new platform.
If I become half a percent smarter each year, I'll be a genius by the time I die
Last edited by arnie; August 23rd, 2012 at 07:17 AM.
The following 6 users say Thank You to arnie for this post:
SC is much faster than NT, and has much more features to make trade easier, such as combining DOM with Chart, so quick to enter order on chart.
As of customer service, NT sounds much better, their customer service always thank you so much for your question, however, they can't solve the problem, because they are not technician, if you request a feature, they will forward your request to development department, and you never know when they will do it, three years later it is still an open question.
In SC, looks like the technician support the forum, if they think the feature is helpful and reasonable, they do it right away, may be 5 days later they come up new release with the new feature. Yes, they never like NT so polite, and they even ask the customers not posting Thank You for service they provided, their service just straight to the point.
By the way, I am ready to open account with Mirus, seems like SC does not support Zen Fire officially, but they may work. So anyone here has account with Mirus and trade through SC? How does it work?
Thanks a lot.
The following 3 users say Thank You to manualtrader for this post:
With their fast development cycle, have you or others asked SC to fix or improve the issues you have found in these areas? With the feedback we've read on quick updates, I would think they could make some of these simple improvements relatively easily/quickly by now?
What has their response been to each of the issues mentioned: DOM aesthetics to be more competitive with the other options like NT, MC, TT etc, general platform aesthetics, ease of usability of the platform, improving chart trading, custom sessions, data storage?
Also, can you elaborate on what you mean when you say the ability to create multiple sessions, like crude would want to have?