Digital Rights Management System?

Questions about MultiCharts and user contributed studies.
SUPER
Posts: 622
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Digital Rights Management System?

Postby SUPER » 26 Feb 2009

I have never seen this message before, can someone explain what is this new stuff with MC beta 3
Attachments
mC2.JPG
mC2.JPG (31.56 KiB) Viewed 1687 times

User avatar
arnie
Posts: 1567
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Location: Portugal
Has thanked: 470 times
Been thanked: 503 times

Postby arnie » 26 Feb 2009

I also receive that message yesterday.

Is that bug that Beta 3 have.

I reinstalled Beta 2 since I never had a single problem with it

mojotrader
Posts: 87
Joined: 07 Dec 2006

Postby mojotrader » 26 Feb 2009

This message is really getting annoying. Three times today it pops up interrupting my concentration. I know it's beta but still....

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 26 Feb 2009

Multicharts quit working twice during trading hours today.

This Authorization server is paranoid way of managing licenses. Crap.

Instead of fixing the bugs, the programmer's resources burned on the DRM.:!:

Sure and guaranteed way to lose existing customers instead of focusing on generating more sales through better quality products and more competitive pricing.

DRM is another weak link in the chain that add to your risk when trading.

to MC team: please note the time on screenshots: I am in Mountain Standard Time (GMT-7)
Attachments
connection reestablished.jpg
connection reestablished.jpg (48.81 KiB) Viewed 1681 times
Connection Lost.jpg
Connection Lost.jpg (53.17 KiB) Viewed 1645 times
Last edited by geizer on 26 Feb 2009, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 26 Feb 2009

Dear TS Support:

Please answer the following questions regarding the DRM:

1. Do you have redundant DRM servers set-up?

2. If you do, can DRM servers automatically fallback without human intervention ?

3. If you do have redundant servers, are they hosted on the different networks?

4. If you do have redundant servers, are they in two different physical locations?

5. Does Multicharts give a trader sufficient time before disconnecting abruptly?

6. Do you understand fully and responsibly that you are cutting trader's connection which may result in losses much greater then cost of your software?

7. Do you understand fully and responsibly that the risk presented to traders by DRM and lack of crucial emergency infrastructure is a sufficient reason to switch from Multicharts to another platform, such as AB for example?

8. Do you fully realize that you are cutting the connection to traders who legitimately use your product on one machine only?

If you answered 'No' to any one question, you are not yet ready to implement DRM and just playing with fire.

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 26 Feb 2009

After having been disconnected by this bloody DRM today, I am ready to go and place my sincere comment about your software on elitetrader.com
The only reason I haven't done this yet is that I am a new registered user on elitetrader.com and need to post minimum # of posts before I can provide rating for your software.

Please rest assured that as soon as I have the right to post about your software on the elitetrader.com I will leave you my honest negative feedback about Multicharts.
-
Pavel

mojotrader
Posts: 87
Joined: 07 Dec 2006

Postby mojotrader » 26 Feb 2009

I agree with all the DRM crap. Should my real time feed stop working just because MC fails to "authenticate", you know what will hit the fan.

MC has a licensing issue, not a DRM problem. In my past life I delt with these issue in software. As a windows application, MC has full access to system (hardware & software) information that can be used to authenticate use of their product, even if I tried circumventing their licensing technology or didn't have an internet connection. Relative to the complexity of MC, licensing is simple to design and implement.

brodnicki steven
Posts: 407
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Been thanked: 3 times

Postby brodnicki steven » 26 Feb 2009

This DRM issue is obviously a "BUG" (one of several bugs already posted) and v5.3 should be avoided, until this is fixed, just go back to v5.2, no DRM problems there.
Remember these are "Betas" , test versions and will have bugs, it's not fair to judge it, until the final version is out.

SUPER
Posts: 622
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Postby SUPER » 26 Feb 2009

After going through other users feedback and my first hand experience, if MC can not sort out terrible mess it has created by using not-user friendly DRM - I will have no choice but to move away from MC to some other product. Any trader who trades for a living can not afford to be bogged down in middle of a trading day by MC licensing issue. I thought and belived that MC is making progress towards addressing customers concerns and from what I am seeing now its lost it sight and moving in opposite direction.

I think its a wake-up call before customers start leaving MC for good.

My comments may sound a bit harsh, but in the end its our hard earned money at stake.

brodnicki steven
Posts: 407
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Been thanked: 3 times

Postby brodnicki steven » 26 Feb 2009

After going through other users feedback and my first hand experience, if MC can not sort out terrible mess it has created by using not-user friendly DRM - I will have no choice but to move away from MC to some other product. Any trader who trades for a living can not afford to be bogged down in middle of a trading day by MC licensing issue. I thought and belived that MC is making progress towards addressing customers concerns and from what I am seeing now its lost it sight and moving in opposite direction.

I think its a wake-up call before customers start leaving MC for good.

My comments may sound a bit harsh, but in the end its our hard earned money at stake.


* Why not go back to V5.2 ? it doesn't have the DRM issue. ( or the lockup issues)

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 26 Feb 2009

.... just go back to v5.2, no DRM problems there.
Remember these are "Betas" , test versions and will have bugs, it's not fair to judge it, until the final version is out.


Which one can you recommend v2, v3 or v4?

1. Does not drop connection with IB TWS
2. Does not have holes in the daily charts

I would highly appreciate any expert advise on the version that does the above mentioned basic things.

--
Thank you
Last edited by geizer on 26 Feb 2009, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6523
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 1883 times

Postby TJ » 26 Feb 2009

I am using the rock solid Version 4.0 Beta 1 (Build 1440)

;-)

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 26 Feb 2009

I am using the rock solid Version 4.0 Beta 1 (Build 1440)

;-)


The latest available official release for download is 4.0.1724.400 (22 October 2008)
Is your build more stable than latest publicly available?

brodnicki steven
Posts: 407
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Been thanked: 3 times

Postby brodnicki steven » 26 Feb 2009

I've been using V5.2 , it never stops updating. Over the past 3 months, I did have a strange chart overlapping problem a few times but that's all. I'm not sure if the chart problem was video driver related or MC related. It doesn't happen often enough to figure out. For daily bars, I use 24hr bars, so I can't comment on the daily bars.
I would recommend using the last major release v4 or TJ's advice "I am using the rock solid Version 4.0 Beta 1 (Build 1440) " , if you want the best stability.
I like using the latest versions when they are relatively problem free. I enjoy checking out the latest features. V5.2 is pretty good , for a beta. I use it for daytrading everyday.
To add stability, I re-boot the computer everyday, to refresh memory and I also defrag the hard drive daily. It may be overkill but I rarely have problems.
I run 17 workspaces with about 4 charts on each and 1/2 dozen studies each.

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6523
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 1883 times

Postby TJ » 27 Feb 2009

I am using the rock solid Version 4.0 Beta 1 (Build 1440)
;-)

The latest available official release for download is 4.0.1724.400 (22 October 2008)
Is your build more stable than latest publicly available?

I don't know if one is "more" stable than the other.
All I know is, b1440 works for me, and I can't risk to experiment with anything else.

bigboy
Posts: 2
Joined: 02 Feb 2006

well..

Postby bigboy » 27 Feb 2009

Yes, maybe reverting back will help solve this issue. Anyone know which files are necessary to run zenfire on older build??

Wish they would just post the datafeed files instead of an entire update like they used to. Some of us would rather keep the old version going instead of introducing new bugs.

bigboy

bowlesj3
Posts: 1979
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Postby bowlesj3 » 27 Feb 2009

Since they do not retain really old versions on the download site, I would recommend downloading every single version they post as soon as they post it so you can go as far back as you want or move ahead if you feel it is safe. Also if not done already have a fast full drive copy strategy prepared. I have a bunch of old posts from the omega-list for this. If anyone wants I will copy them here. I need to get around to learning the latest on this myself.
Last edited by bowlesj3 on 27 Feb 2009, edited 2 times in total.

bowlesj3
Posts: 1979
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Postby bowlesj3 » 27 Feb 2009

Here is something else I learned from going back to MC 2.1.999.999. The workspaces are different and the file format too. In other words if you do not have at least a few old copies of these you can not go back (withhout rebuilding your workspaces and doing a very large back fill). I got screwed up and almost could not go back easily. Luckily I had just started to keep backups of my old data and workspaces. So as a result of the close call I set up a series of zip files and every night after trading I save the 3 files and all my workspaces to these zip files. I go back a month using this cycle. MC_Data01.zip, MC_Data02.zip, MC_Data03.zip, etc to MC_Data31.zip. You might even want to set up a zip format based upon both date and MC version. Maybe MC_V4_Data01.zip. That way if you go back but later notice a problem that did not show right away you can go even farther back if you want. At the very least copy all this stuff and mark it with the release number in the zip file. Disk space is cheap. Frustration isn't. I actually toggled a few times across revisions and took notes for future use.

One last question. Why is this message poping up mid day. The way I see it, their check for license should only be at startup. Also if MC craps it should be smart enough to bypass this test on the restart.

Tresor
Posts: 1104
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Postby Tresor » 27 Feb 2009


Which one can you recommend v2, v3 or v4?

I would highly appreciate any expert advise on the version that does the above mentioned basic things.

--
Thank you


Hi geizer,

From time to time when a new MC version is released it tends to calculate some functions differently than an older version. Let's say a function XYZ in ver2 returns value 3.2, then in ver3 the same function can return value 6.4 or yet a different value. You never know, unless you are a mathematician and have a lot of free time to play arround and check which value is correct (which MC version's math is correct).

I enclose two screenshots so that you could get an idea of what I am talking about: one screenshot is MC ver A and the other is MC ver B (B replaced A in 2008). I do not have time and will to find the version and built number of these particular MCs.

As you can see the indicator (a complex one) plots differently, depending on the version of MC.

Trading the same indicator with the A version of MC could be higly profitable. Trading the same indicator with the B realease of MC could be a financial disaster. The data and resolution is the same in both cases.

I paid a programmer $500 to determine if the problem was with the code of the indicator or the problem was with MC. The indicator code was the same. The programmer discovered that MC was miscalulating two functions.

This was my happy start with the algortithmic trading with MC :lol:

Conclusion: If you want to go into algorithmic trade, hire a mathematically gifted programmer to check which version does not miscalculate functions. If you only want MC to receive data from IB, use the version that TJ uses.

Regards
Attachments
MC ver A.jpg
MC ver A.jpg (146.8 KiB) Viewed 1622 times
MC ver B.jpg
MC ver B.jpg (145.72 KiB) Viewed 1634 times

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 28 Feb 2009

Hi Tresor,
My respect to you for being persistent and your patience.
I am back to v.4 official release. Let TSS do the beta-testing as they should :?
Nothing wrong with waiting for bug fixes as it takes time, and it's obvious now that bug fixes will be issued in a package with DRM from now on. That includes bugs inherited from v2. But any extra risk introduced by the DRM server is a serious trade-off that is hard to accept. :|

A friend of mine who was willing to buy Multicharts, changed his mind in the last minute and bought AB last night. The defining factor was "bugs", not the price. What else can I say?

P.S.
I understand and totally support TSS efforts to protect the intellectual property, and wishing them good luck in finding the cost effective way, but I don't think their have chosen the right path. I call it the "Microsoft way". There is another example - Apple recently announced that 100% of MP3 songs sold through their online stores will be "DRM-free" as opposed to Microsoft "DRM-only". No wonder that Apple is #1 in the world in online music sales. Something to think about...

User avatar
arnie
Posts: 1567
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Location: Portugal
Has thanked: 470 times
Been thanked: 503 times

Postby arnie » 28 Feb 2009

Hi geizer,

From time to time when a new MC version is released it tends to calculate some functions differently than an older version. Let's say a function XYZ in ver2 returns value 3.2, then in ver3 the same function can return value 6.4 or yet a different value. You never know, unless you are a mathematician and have a lot of free time to play arround and check which value is correct (which MC version's math is correct).

I enclose two screenshots so that you could get an idea of what I am talking about: one screenshot is MC ver A and the other is MC ver B (B replaced A in 2008). I do not have time and will to find the version and built number of these particular MCs.

As you can see the indicator (a complex one) plots differently, depending on the version of MC.

Trading the same indicator with the A version of MC could be higly profitable. Trading the same indicator with the B realease of MC could be a financial disaster. The data and resolution is the same in both cases.

I paid a programmer $500 to determine if the problem was with the code of the indicator or the problem was with MC. The indicator code was the same. The programmer discovered that MC was miscalulating two functions.

This was my happy start with the algortithmic trading with MC :lol:

Conclusion: If you want to go into algorithmic trade, hire a mathematically gifted programmer to check which version does not miscalculate functions. If you only want MC to receive data from IB, use the version that TJ uses.

Regards


:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Apart from all the problems I've heard and read so far this is probably the one that rang a couple of bells.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

So this means that after spending hours or dollars developing a winning trading strategy/system in one MC version, that same winning trading strategy/system can start to generate losses due to changings in the way functions are calculated?

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

So, now we don't only need to worry about the changings in the markets themselves but also with the possible changes in how functions are calculated in the next upgrades?

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

OK, I'm starting to get worried now.
Last week I thought I had made the best purchase ever (regarding TA software) when I bought MC but now I'm starting to get second thoughts

:?

bowlesj3
Posts: 1979
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Postby bowlesj3 » 28 Feb 2009

I have asked them to assign a number to each bug and report it back to the users after they report a bug then include the number with bug fixes when a new release comes out. I have not seen this yet. If I could look up the number for the problem I was having with MC 3.1 beta and see it was fixed in V4 I would move up to V4. I assume the bug is still there and will not risk an upgrade until the gold release and until I am well prepared to move back fast.

Also if this was being done I would pay more attention to the other posts about bugs and jot down the bug numbers I had concerns with.

So the first bug to fix is "not assigning numbers to the bugs"!

Tresor
Posts: 1104
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Postby Tresor » 28 Feb 2009

So this means that after spending hours or dollars developing a winning trading strategy/system in one MC version, that same winning trading strategy/system can start to generate losses due to changings in the way functions are calculated?


Yes, If you are unlucky, this can be the case.


OK, I'm starting to get worried now.


Don't worry, Be happy. Life is not all about money :mrgreen:

BTW, we need more funny emoticons to choose from.

Regards

bowlesj3
Posts: 1979
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Postby bowlesj3 » 28 Feb 2009

Regarding different calculations between versions, one thing that I have noticed about MC (when using IB data at least) is the fact that it will change the data a bit during the transition from backfilling to live. If there is a delay of some sort it will leave a small gap or distort the transition bar a bit. For me it is not a big deal since when it happens only one or two minute bars are effected during the early morning when volume is low. However a fully automated trading system might pick up a difference if you upgraded and had to redo a backfill. It would be especially true if you did one backfill to replace a week of daily backfills. So if your upgrade or downgrade was done with a different backfill pattern (as my flipping back and forth between MC 2.1.999.999 and MC 3.1 did) it could effect your numbers. It could be that some formulas are effected and some are not. Each person would need to dig in to get the details before jumping to conclusions for their specific case. I was upset about it when I was new to MC then I realized it had no impact at all on my income so I started focusing on much more important things like whether MC runs all day without aborting.

SUPER
Posts: 622
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Postby SUPER » 28 Feb 2009

Off Topic-message deleted
Last edited by SUPER on 12 Mar 2009, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
arnie
Posts: 1567
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Location: Portugal
Has thanked: 470 times
Been thanked: 503 times

Postby arnie » 28 Feb 2009

off topic

closed message
Last edited by arnie on 03 Mar 2009, edited 2 times in total.

Tresor
Posts: 1104
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Postby Tresor » 28 Feb 2009

Tresor,

Thanks for reporting a serious flaw, different builds = different results.

Just woundering if you came accross similar situations with " canned " indicators that come with MC.


Hello, I only investigated this particular indicator as it used to be essential for my trading. I have no knowledge if similar issues appear on built-in indicators.

Regards

bowlesj3
Posts: 1979
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Postby bowlesj3 » 28 Feb 2009

Hay arnie,

Furthermore, for me, at this moment, it's impossible to trade with an automated system.
First of all, I have no knowledge, yet, to program such a system Razz , and second, for me, the market itself already give enought variables to trade on, I don't need to add more,



It is nice to hear this. I have been programming a long time and was always pretty natural at it but the waves in the market get pretty dam complex (gee sub waves get inserted inside the main waves at any time and the main waives contract down to zero at times - sheesh!!!!). I can figure out with my eyes what would take many months to program and I am not sure if I could truly trust it. Pay me $5 million to write it maybe. But I personally do not think MC could handle it. My eyes can see it in a split second. What I am saying is this. Don't try and become a great programmer. You do not need it to make money. Just ask Jesse Livermore (okay so he is dead - Minor point).

Never say you can't take money with you. I plan on having it in my coffin and I want a bucket to kick too. I want three of them for diversification :-)

John.

Tresor
Posts: 1104
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Postby Tresor » 28 Feb 2009

I'm not a fan of using the data feed "offered" by a broker nor using a total automated trading system.


If you are an algo trader, then for sure the only option is to subscribe to a professional data provider. No doubt about it.

But if you are a discretional trader it really shouldn't matter. If you are a budget discretionary trader, go for a free data feed that your broker offers.

Furthermore, for me, at this moment, it's impossible to trade with an automated system. First of all, I have no knowledge, yet, to program such a system


I myself am nothing more than ''copy and paste''. You can write a trading algorithm and had it coded by a professional programmer. That's what I used to do in the ancient times when I thought that algo trading with MC was possible. Now, I would not risk for a number of reasons. I explained one of these reasons earlier in this thread.

Regards

Tresor
Posts: 1104
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Postby Tresor » 28 Feb 2009

I am back to v.4 official release. Let TSS do the beta-testing as they should :?


This MC build should have never passed the alpha testing (alpha testing = pre-beta testing stage run internaly within the company) with this DRM bug. If alpha testing had been done properly, betas would have been much nicer!

Regards

User avatar
arnie
Posts: 1567
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Location: Portugal
Has thanked: 470 times
Been thanked: 503 times

Postby arnie » 28 Feb 2009

off topic

closed message
Last edited by arnie on 03 Mar 2009, edited 1 time in total.

brodnicki steven
Posts: 407
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Been thanked: 3 times

Postby brodnicki steven » 28 Feb 2009


Which one can you recommend v2, v3 or v4?

I would highly appreciate any expert advise on the version that does the above mentioned basic things.

--
Thank you


Hi geizer,

From time to time when a new MC version is released it tends to calculate some functions differently than an older version. Let's say a function XYZ in ver2 returns value 3.2, then in ver3 the same function can return value 6.4 or yet a different value. You never know, unless you are a mathematician and have a lot of free time to play arround and check which value is correct (which MC version's math is correct).

I enclose two screenshots so that you could get an idea of what I am talking about: one screenshot is MC ver A and the other is MC ver B (B replaced A in 2008). I do not have time and will to find the version and built number of these particular MCs.

As you can see the indicator (a complex one) plots differently, depending on the version of MC.

Trading the same indicator with the A version of MC could be higly profitable. Trading the same indicator with the B realease of MC could be a financial disaster. The data and resolution is the same in both cases.

I paid a programmer $500 to determine if the problem was with the code of the indicator or the problem was with MC. The indicator code was the same. The programmer discovered that MC was miscalulating two functions.

This was my happy start with the algortithmic trading with MC :lol:

Conclusion: If you want to go into algorithmic trade, hire a mathematically gifted programmer to check which version does not miscalculate functions. If you only want MC to receive data from IB, use the version that TJ uses.

Regards


* Please start a new thread about this or submit it to support for investigation.
We need this resolved for the benefit of all. Support probably won't see it in this thread.
The important thing is that indicators are calculated correctly , not that they match previous versions, the previous versions might have been calculating incorrectly, so it was fixed in subsequent versions.

Tresor
Posts: 1104
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Postby Tresor » 28 Feb 2009

* Please start a new thread about this or submit it to support for investigation.
We need this resolved for the benefit of all. Support probably won't see it in this thread.


Hi Steven, you are right. This thread is about the DRM issue. Sorry for stealing the thread. I just wanted geizer to become aware that he may encounter MC's specific idiosyncracies while changing from one version to the other.

Regards

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 01 Mar 2009

* Please start a new thread about this or submit it to support for investigation.
We need this resolved for the benefit of all. Support probably won't see it in this thread.


Hi Steven, you are right. This thread is about the DRM issue. Sorry for stealing the thread. I just wanted geizer to become aware that he may encounter MC's specific idiosyncracies while changing from one version to the other.

Regards


You are all right. Many of us, including myself reported number of bugs to TS support, including ones that were never publicly discussed. In my opinion the only problem is to have TS Support actually acknowledge the issues. TS Support should step in and say: We appreciate the feedback, here is the total list of all issues/bugs known today. We are going to prioritize them in the following order: such and such. Until TS Support does this, it's all speculation.

Tresor
Posts: 1104
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Postby Tresor » 01 Mar 2009

You are all right. Many of us, including myself reported number of bugs to TS support, including ones that were never publicly discussed.


I actually never informed TSS of MC wrongly calculating functions. So TSS should not be blamed for this. I perceive proper / improper functions' calculation a minor issue. Besides, TSS never claimed the math in MC would work properly. What TSS claimed is that MC has:

High-Definition Charting. Wrong! - change bars are being miscaluclated, point original bars are being miscalculated, volume bars (due to a ''division mechanism'') are not being displayed properly under heavy volume conditions;

Powerful Data Management. Wrong! - any data feed (3) I tried so far failed: no backfill on constant / occasional basis, wrong volume interpretation, missing bars.

Unless the above major issues are fixed, there is no much sense in fixing function calculations.

It would be nice to have a charting software that always calculates functions the same and mathematically proper way. But it is more important (at least for me) that this software is rock-solid when it comes to calculating and plotting bars. To calculate and plot bars MC must have a rock-solid data management.

I wouldn't like to use a software that calculates functions with flying colours on bars which ... are calculated and displyed improperly.

That's why proper functions' calculation is a minor and unimportant issue for me.

Regards

brendanh
Posts: 154
Joined: 07 Apr 2007

Postby brendanh » 02 Mar 2009

This thread has gone off topic. Until now, MC has had no reliance on TSS server infrastructure. Now it will not work unless TSS's DRM servers are operational. We urgently need answers to Geizer's questions below. If there is insufficient redundancy, MC v5 beta 3+ has a greater risk of failure than prior versions which has major financial implications for customers. I don't see why TSS doesn't use TS's IP protection system: new installs require manual authorisation by a customer services agent. Probably cheaper than all that redundancy.

Dear TS Support:

Please answer the following questions regarding the DRM:

1. Do you have redundant DRM servers set-up?

2. If you do, can DRM servers automatically fallback without human intervention ?

3. If you do have redundant servers, are they hosted on the different networks?

4. If you do have redundant servers, are they in two different physical locations?

5. Does Multicharts give a trader sufficient time before disconnecting abruptly?

6. Do you understand fully and responsibly that you are cutting trader's connection which may result in losses much greater then cost of your software?

7. Do you understand fully and responsibly that the risk presented to traders by DRM and lack of crucial emergency infrastructure is a sufficient reason to switch from Multicharts to another platform, such as AB for example?

8. Do you fully realize that you are cutting the connection to traders who legitimately use your product on one machine only?

If you answered 'No' to any one question, you are not yet ready to implement DRM and just playing with fire.

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6523
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 1883 times

Postby TJ » 02 Mar 2009

This thread has gone off topic...

would ALL the people who has grieves on other issues please:

1. delete your OT post.

2. start a new thread on the topic of your choice.

if you do not do that, the DRM issue will never be heard.

THANK YOU.

miltonc4
Posts: 150
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Postby miltonc4 » 03 Mar 2009

Hi Support

The following occurred
3.3.09 5:30:12...DRM system lost,no real time data will be collected
3.3.09 5:32:24...DRM system re established
A couple of concerns:
Makes the Multicharts unusable for 2.25 minutes,as no data is collected during this period...how is this data made up/collected later ?

If this occurred during a time when a trade is in operation,then who covers the loss(if any) should I not be able to close a trade during this period,when in this case the issue was specifically caused by MultiCharts
How does this effect automated trading ?,restablishing,orders etc ???
Not good enough TS
Why,would you disconnect the RTdata supply ???????? thats just too much
Sure, do your checks,but at least leave the program fully operational.

Milton
PS,...2.25 minutes may not seem long,but to a short term/scalp trader, this is like a lifetime when managing a trade,as many trades are done and dusted in this time

SUPER
Posts: 622
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Postby SUPER » 04 Mar 2009

This thread has gone off topic. Until now, MC has had no reliance on TSS server infrastructure. Now it will not work unless TSS's DRM servers are operational. We urgently need answers to Geizer's questions below. If there is insufficient redundancy, MC v5 beta 3+ has a greater risk of failure than prior versions which has major financial implications for customers. I don't see why TSS doesn't use TS's IP protection system: new installs require manual authorisation by a customer services agent. Probably cheaper than all that redundancy.

Dear TS Support:

Please answer the following questions regarding the DRM:

1. Do you have redundant DRM servers set-up?

2. If you do, can DRM servers automatically fallback without human intervention ?

3. If you do have redundant servers, are they hosted on the different networks?

4. If you do have redundant servers, are they in two different physical locations?

5. Does Multicharts give a trader sufficient time before disconnecting abruptly?

6. Do you understand fully and responsibly that you are cutting trader's connection which may result in losses much greater then cost of your software?

7. Do you understand fully and responsibly that the risk presented to traders by DRM and lack of crucial emergency infrastructure is a sufficient reason to switch from Multicharts to another platform, such as AB for example?

8. Do you fully realize that you are cutting the connection to traders who legitimately use your product on one machine only?

If you answered 'No' to any one question, you are not yet ready to implement DRM and just playing with fire.


Marina,

I know , the new beta 4 has not raised new complains about the DRM issue, but we still need clarifications to very important concerns raised by "geizer".

Regards
Super

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 04 Mar 2009

(bump the thread up)

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 05 Mar 2009

Marina,

I know , the new beta 4 has not raised new complains about the DRM issue, but we still need clarifications to very important concerns raised by "geizer".

Regards
Super


I will not be moving from beta 2 until there is a satisfactory answer.

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 05 Mar 2009

The DRM issue is serious enough to be ignored.
Marina?

User avatar
RobotMan
Posts: 375
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Location: Los Altos, California, USA
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Postby RobotMan » 10 Mar 2009

Beta 4 has been working flawlessly until today 10Mar09 at 0823 PDT(see attached). eSignal Data Manager working fine. NT working fine. PingPlotter says no dropouts to eSignal Datafarm.

I waited for it to start up by itself again. But it didn't, so I shut it down.
And I am done trading for the day.
Attachments
NotAuthorized.jpg
NotAuthorized.jpg (2.46 KiB) Viewed 1621 times

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 10 Mar 2009

Beta 4 has been working flawlessly until today 10Mar09 at 0823 PDT(see attached). eSignal Data Manager working fine. NT working fine. PingPlotter says no dropouts to eSignal Datafarm.

I waited for it to start up by itself again. But it didn't, so I shut it down.
And I am done trading for the day.


please send us your logs.

User avatar
RobotMan
Posts: 375
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Location: Los Altos, California, USA
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Postby RobotMan » 10 Mar 2009

Hi Andrew,

In the past, I have seen people post their logs and it seemed there were many more files than I can find.
I searched for "*.log", "*.txt", "log" and could only come up with one file for MC located at:
C:\Documents and Settings\bobperry\Local Settings\Temp\TS Support\Logs\TSSupplier\eSignal[tsServer].log

It is attached.
Attachments
eSignal[tsServer].zip
(5.99 KiB) Downloaded 41 times

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 10 Mar 2009

Bob,
Thank you, but this is not what I need. Please go to Start->Programs->MultiCharts->logs and send me all folders zipped.

SUPER
Posts: 622
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Postby SUPER » 10 Mar 2009

This thread has gone off topic. Until now, MC has had no reliance on TSS server infrastructure. Now it will not work unless TSS's DRM servers are operational. We urgently need answers to Geizer's questions below. If there is insufficient redundancy, MC v5 beta 3+ has a greater risk of failure than prior versions which has major financial implications for customers. I don't see why TSS doesn't use TS's IP protection system: new installs require manual authorisation by a customer services agent. Probably cheaper than all that redundancy.

Dear TS Support:

Please answer the following questions regarding the DRM:

1. Do you have redundant DRM servers set-up?

2. If you do, can DRM servers automatically fallback without human intervention ?

3. If you do have redundant servers, are they hosted on the different networks?

4. If you do have redundant servers, are they in two different physical locations?

5. Does Multicharts give a trader sufficient time before disconnecting abruptly?

6. Do you understand fully and responsibly that you are cutting trader's connection which may result in losses much greater then cost of your software?

7. Do you understand fully and responsibly that the risk presented to traders by DRM and lack of crucial emergency infrastructure is a sufficient reason to switch from Multicharts to another platform, such as AB for example?

8. Do you fully realize that you are cutting the connection to traders who legitimately use your product on one machine only?

If you answered 'No' to any one question, you are not yet ready to implement DRM and just playing with fire.


Marina,

I know , the new beta 4 has not raised new complains about the DRM issue, but we still need clarifications to very important concerns raised by "geizer".

Regards
Super



TS Support,

Why are we not getting any responce to these questions??????

User avatar
RobotMan
Posts: 375
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Location: Los Altos, California, USA
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Postby RobotMan » 10 Mar 2009

Andrew,

Here you go.

Thanks.
Attachments
Logs.zip
(76.91 KiB) Downloaded 47 times

Fabrice Daniel
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Been thanked: 2 times

Postby Fabrice Daniel » 11 Mar 2009

TSSupport,

Did you really implement a DRM policy in this release ?

I had recommend your software to several people for automatic trading with a Forex broker for Professional Money Managers (DLL API linked with our own professional trading platform).

This is simple : If there is any risk to be disconnected or if we can't switch from a computer to another for backup purpose, without any hardware profile limitation I have to find another solution for them very quickly.

I need a reply before tomorow 16:00 GMT.

Thank you

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009

Dear users,
DRM is designed to prevent illegal usage of our product.
You can install MultiCharts on several computers for backup purposes. However only one account can be used at time.

Regarding reliability of DRM. It is obvious for all users on this forum that there are no 100% reliable systems. You always have a risk that your OS will crash, your internet will be down for minutes/hours or you data feed stop to provide data. And it happens from time to time, but it is very rare.

Our system is designed to be reliable, but it is not possible to state that it will never fail. We made it redundant and our servers are reliable. It can work for some time even if both servers are unavailable.
The current state of DRM is not a final and we will not release a version until we see that it works according to our expectations Our goal is simple – our honest users should never see any issues. Please don’t judge until you will see the final beta. As soon as we announce that this beta is final and you will see any issues we will postpone release until we are 100% sure we made all we could to make it reliable.
We don't force anybody to upgrade to MC 5 beta if you don't like a new DRM.
However I'm sure that all of us understand a scale of piracy and realize a necessity of security measures. Thank you for understanding.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

Dear users,
DRM is designed to prevent illegal usage of our product.
You can install MultiCharts on several computers for backup purposes. However only one account can be used at time.

Regarding reliability of DRM. It is obvious for all users on this forum that there are no 100% reliable systems. You always have a risk that your OS will crash, your internet will be down for minutes/hours or you data feed stop to provide data. And it happens from time to time, but it is very rare.

Our system is designed to be reliable, but it is not possible to state that it will never fail. We made it redundant and our servers are reliable. It can work for some time even if both servers are unavailable.
The current state of DRM is not a final and we will not release a version until we see that it works according to our expectations Our goal is simple – our honest users should never see any issues. Please don’t judge until you will see the final beta. As soon as we announce that this beta is final and you will see any issues we will postpone release until we are 100% sure we made all we could to make it reliable.
We don't force anybody to upgrade to MC 5 beta if you don't like a new DRM.
However I'm sure that all of us understand a scale of piracy and realize a necessity of security measures. Thank you for understanding.



Andrew,

I certainly understand the need to protect your product from piracy, but I think what we are objecting to here is having the product disconnect from live data AFTER it has been authenticated if your DRM servers or any part of the internet between should experience a problem. This is just adding yet another point of failure and that is the last thing any trader wants.
Surely authenticating once a day would provide all the protection you require.

Regards,
Geoff

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009

Dear Geoff,
Unfortunately “authenticating once a day” doesn’t help us since people run MultiCharts on 50 computers simultaneously and pay us for 1 copy only. Do you think it is fair?
If program just checks for authorization on start you can run as many copies as you want. MC 4.0 uses this authorization mechanism. The only viable solution is to maintain a connection and don’t allow others to run the second copy.
We do understand that we can’t afford to disconnect honest users if our servers are down. To avoid this situation our program will not stop real-time data for many minutes, not seconds. It is virtually impossible that two independent servers will not respond within several minutes. It is possible, but again I don’t think it will happen. I think a good analogy is a reserve parachute – there is always a chance that will not work, but it is so small that it doesn’t make sense to care about it.

brendanh
Posts: 154
Joined: 07 Apr 2007

Postby brendanh » 11 Mar 2009

Not all redundancy is the same. Reserve parachutes are independent from the primary parachute, so your analogy is only valid if your redundant server is on an independent network and data center from the primary DRM server. If it isn't, then there's a good chance the reserve "parachute" will fail at the same time as the primary. Please advise.

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6523
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 1883 times

Postby TJ » 11 Mar 2009

it is sad that people who can afford 50 copies, but do not pay up.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

Andrew,

As brendanh pointed out there are many levels of redundancy. I am well aware after spending nearly 20 years as a network consultant and having designed and implemented resilient systems for investment banks in the City of London and on Wall Street, that no matter how much money you throw at it, they can and do still go wrong.
The issue is simply that the program should not stop if the authentication fails. Maybe a system like most data vendors use where if a second copy on the same licence appears it would fail to start or disconnect the original copy work better?

Regards,
Geoff

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6523
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 1883 times

Postby TJ » 11 Mar 2009

Andrew,
As brendanh pointed out there are many levels of redundancy. I am well aware after spending nearly 20 years as a network consultant and having designed and implemented resilient systems for investment banks in the City of London and on Wall Street, that no matter how much money you throw at it, they can and do still go wrong.
The issue is simply that the program should not stop if the authentication fails. Maybe a system like most data vendors use where if a second copy on the same licence appears it would fail to start or disconnect the original copy work better?
Regards,
Geoff

There must be a number of pirates using MC for offline backtesting.
They take the machine offline as soon as it is authenticated.
:-(

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009

Not all redundancy is the same. Reserve parachutes are independent from the primary parachute, so your analogy is only valid if your redundant server is on an independent network and data center from the primary DRM server. If it isn't, then there's a good chance the reserve "parachute" will fail at the same time as the primary. Please advise.


Right. Our servers are independent and hosted in different parts of USA. If the first server doesn't respond the system automatically switches to another within a second. Otherwise it is not correct to talk about redundancy.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

[/quote]
There must be a number of pirates using MC for offline backtesting.
They take the machine offline as soon as it is authenticated.
:-([/quote]

Yes but disconnecting online users will not solve that. It's still easy to see the license is being used on multiple PC's and then disable that licence.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009

Andrew,

The issue is simply that the program should not stop if the authentication fails. Maybe a system like most data vendors use where if a second copy on the same licence appears it would fail to start or disconnect the original copy work better?

Regards,
Geoff

Dear Geoff,
We do disconnect the other users with the same account. The problem is if a user blocks connection to our server with any available firewall in run-timel, the second copy will be easily used on the second PC. So our security will have a big hole without constant connection. However we will not disconnect if there is no connection for a few minutes.
Considering the redundancy and time out the problem is not likely happen.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

Andrew,

Yes I appreciate that can be done with a firewall, but I would have thought that would be easy to pick up on at your end.

Anyway I can see that I'm not going to win this argument with you so I'll have to hope you have all the teething problems ironed out before the official release.
However when it does all go wrong and some major problem or human error causes you block out your entire user base........ well I promise not to say I told you so.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009

Andrew,

Yes I appreciate that can be done with a firewall, but I would have thought that would be easy to pick up on at your end.

You misunderstood me. I meant that dishonest people can use firewall to block it and this is why we have a protection from such a simple trick – the system will online for a few minutes and after that it will go offline. In 30 days it will ask to go online.


Anyway I can see that I'm not going to win this argument with you so I'll have to hope you have all the teething problems ironed out before the official release.
However when it does all go wrong and some major problem or human error causes you block out your entire user base........ well I promise not to say I told you so.

We do understand responsibility. We will roll out a release as soon as we confident that the system works.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

You misunderstood me. I meant that dishonest people can use firewall to block it and this is why we have a protection from such a simple trick – the system will online for a few minutes and after that it will go offline. In 30 days it will ask to go online.


I understood perfectly. I was suggesting that you would/should be able to tell if that was occurring on a frequent basis on a particular licence at YOUR end and would therefore have no need to offline and offender in "a few minutes" but would rather be able to take permanent action against the violating licence holder.

We do understand responsibility. We will roll out a release as soon as we confident that the system works.


Again I can only stress that things can and do go wrong. The day will come when your DRM system has an outage longer than "a few minutes" and I will not be the only customer who will be questioning the wisdom of implementing such a system.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009


I understood perfectly. I was suggesting that you would/should be able to tell if that was occurring on a frequent basis on a particular licence at YOUR end and would therefore have no need to offline and offender in "a few minutes" but would rather be able to take permanent action against the violating licence holder.



Could you specify how should I identify that a customer uses MC from several pcs simultaneously if he/she blocks activate connection?
The fact that a customer logged on from two different pcs (different ip or/and hardware ) doesn't prove that he/she uses it simultaneously, because some people close software on one pc and run on another. Even if they do it every minute it is not a fact that they violate the agreement. I understand that they violate, but I can’t prove it.
So it is necessary to ping our server quote often. this is what we do. If we don’t see our server we will NOT turn on real-time emmediately.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

Dear Geoff,
Unfortunately “authenticating once a day” doesn’t help us since people run MultiCharts on 50 computers simultaneously and pay us for 1 copy only. Do you think it is fair?


The fact that a customer logged on from two different pcs (different ip or/and hardware ) doesn't prove that he/she uses it simultaneously, because some people close software on one pc and run on another.


There is obviously a big difference between 50 PCs and 2. I cannot find my copy of the licence agreement but I was under the impression that it could only be installed on a second computer for backup purposes so I assumed that frequent usage on more than 1 was a violation.

Fabrice Daniel
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Been thanked: 2 times

Postby Fabrice Daniel » 11 Mar 2009

Thank you for your reply.

You will experience the same thing many other software companies experienced before you.

You will implement strong anti piracy policy and lose many customers. These customers have nothing to do with piracy and buy all the softwares they used but they don't like constraints or strong limitations because it always mean "risk, time consuming, loose money". It's a question of fear.


Customer fear is stronger than anything else, it's a psychological issue you can't deal with.

That's why such strong security policy always shows a catastrophic risk/reward ratio.

Look at Apple. With iTune even when they had a DRM, they were the number one. All the competitors had very restrictive policy (only 1 CD, 1 Computer, 1 MP3 key for some of them) when Apple allowed up to 5 computers, 5 CDs copy and as much iPOD transfert as you want. And now these small restrictions doesn't exists anymore. Why ? because they know that with less restrictions they make more money.

The customer running 50 intances with one licence will never buy 50 licences, no matter what you do. THere is people who buy and people who never buy.

Why your real honnest cutomers have to pay for the others (with limitations, fear about a new risk) ? just because your are angry about the hackers ?

Please find another solution (simply avoid the hardware dongle wich is worst than anything else).

I will continue to use it for myself because I like your product and I can take my own risk but in any case I can't recommend MC anymore to my customer and start working on other solutions for their automated trading.

Regards

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009

You are right.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

You are right.


So you agree that it is possible for you to enforce anti piracy without putting you honest customers at unnecessary risk with draconian DRM software?

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009

I meant you are right about the EULA. However without enforcement people will use it on many pcs and we will have complains that they didn't violate or violated by mistake, but have been deactivated. Our decision will not be popular and we understand it.

We are sure that our system doesn't add too much risk to a trader. Compared to other risks it is not significant.

Fabrice,
I understand your point and I partly agree with you, but only partly. We forced people to buy additional licenses and they did it.
I don’t use ipod, but as far as I know Apple does care about security and you will not copy files to ipod without their software. All other Korean mp3 players just act as a regular usb flash drive and you can copy files back and forth. However it does contribute to piracy.
It doesn’t make sense to argue. Our decision is final.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

It doesn’t make sense to argue. Our decision is final.


I knew that was coming, I have experienced trying to reason with you before. You can count me as an unhappy customer who will no longer be recommending MultiCharts to other traders and will be looking for an alternative charting package after Gold release.

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 11 Mar 2009

There must be a number of pirates using MC for offline backtesting.
They take the machine offline as soon as it is authenticated.
:-(


TJ,
This probably one of the main reasons why traders use single license on more than one machine.
Another reason could be if they hire a programmer to do the coding and they give a laptop with a copy installed, while trading on the main computer.

Both of the above problems can be solved by offering light versions of Multicharts. For example: "MC backtesting edition", and "MC programmers edition".

But, using single license on 50 computers is an extreme piracy and greed.
Pavel

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009

Our system made zero impact on you yet, because it is not introduced in production state.
Your risk concerns are just your concerns. It is not a fact that the DRM will harm anyone; it is just your opinion.
There are some people who never happy.

If you are not happy with our product, support, improvements and other things we do you are free to find something perfect(name it please).

However I should tell one thing. The attitude you are demonstrating is one of the reasons why growing companies go bankrupt and can't survive. Finally it becomes customers’ problem...

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6523
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 1883 times

Postby TJ » 11 Mar 2009

this a my experience 2 nights ago:

My internet connect was broken at 8 pm.

I thought no problem, I will use the time to review my charts.

MC started with no problem.

but then I needed to reboot my computer.
MC would not allow me to load after the reboot.

This just shows you one of the "hole" a user can encounter.

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6523
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 1883 times

Postby TJ » 11 Mar 2009

I think it is fair for a company to protect its property.

I think DRM is expected.

From the posts above, I think the dissatisfaction is not on the company's right to protect its property, nor the use of DRM.

I think the problem is in the expectation gap.

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009

Our system made zero impact on you yet, because it is not introduced in production state.
Your risk concerns are just your concerns. It is not a fact that the DRM will harm anyone; it is just your opinion.
There are some people who never happy.


The reason I have not been impacted yet is as I fortunately found out about the problems from this thread before installing the offending beta. There was NO mention of DRM in the release notes.

If you are not happy with our product, support, improvements and other things we do you are free to find something perfect(name it please).


I haven't been looking at the market place for some time and will not look forward to having to go through that again. I don't use all the back testing etc. and only use charting so there should be plenty of choice. The reasons I chose MC in the first place was mainly just it felt right after having used TS but I guess I'll learn something else.

However I should tell one thing. The attitude you are demonstrating is one of the reasons why growing companies go bankrupt and can't survive. Finally it becomes customers’ problem...


I believe that more companies fail because of their attitude towards their customers. Small growing companies often do well by being responsive and understanding of their customers concerns and needs.
"It doesn’t make sense to argue. Our decision is final."
Is more the reason that I will not be upgrading to any future TSSuport products than the DRM issue (as a discretionary trader I can live with bringing up a chart in NT if the worst happens).

Fabrice Daniel
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Been thanked: 2 times

Postby Fabrice Daniel » 11 Mar 2009

It doesn’t make sense to argue. Our decision is final.


Ok, it's your company. Your decision.

So I suppose that launching this DRM system you will start a 24/24 support service by phone ? An emergency recovery system (24 hours key gives by phone to the customer) or something like that ? On Forex Market our customers are trading 24/24 on very large amounts. They can't suffer any disruption.

Suggestion : why don't you consider a key exchange per install ? Look at some Music Software (Toontrack for example). The customer install its software and run it. The software display a unique Key based on the hardware. Then the customer go to the vendor website, enter the unique key then apply. He get a licence key he have to enter into the software to unlock it.

You can register 2 copy of the same software on two computers at a time. If you want to transfer a licence to a new computer, you can do it online up to 2 times. After 2 transfert you have to call the vendor.

A given licence key cannot run on a different hardware (ok this could be a problem for VMWare user but that depend on what you used to build the Hardware Key).

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 11 Mar 2009


The reason I have not been impacted yet is as I fortunately found out about the problems from this thread before installing the offending beta. There was NO mention of DRM in the release notes.

FYI:
Beta
'Beta' is a nickname for software which has passed the alpha testing stage of development and has been released to users for software testing before its official release. Beta testing allows the software to undergo usability testing with users who provide feedback, so that any malfunctions these users find in the software can be reported to the developers and fixed. Beta software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss.

It is not fair to make any judgments until you use release. Another thing that you should keep in mind- people who abuse MC Beta 4 DRM don’t allow to downgrade! We ask them to do it, but they don’t want. They prefer to abuse the DRM, but still use the beta.
I believe that more companies fail because of their attitude towards their customers. Small growing companies often do well by being responsive and understanding of their customers concerns and needs.

There are hundreds of people who think that MC should be free. Should we listen to them too? What you offered will not work since this is what we had before and we are basing our decisions on facts, not opinions.

User avatar
geizer
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Postby geizer » 11 Mar 2009

A given licence key cannot run on a different hardware (ok this could be a problem for VMWare user but that depend on what you used to build the Hardware Key).


I am that one VMWare user ...

User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Postby Geoff » 11 Mar 2009


The reason I have not been impacted yet is as I fortunately found out about the problems from this thread before installing the offending beta. There was NO mention of DRM in the release notes.

FYI:
Beta
'Beta' is a nickname for software which has passed the alpha testing stage of development and has been released to users for software testing before its official release. Beta testing allows the software to undergo usability testing with users who provide feedback, so that any malfunctions these users find in the software can be reported to the developers and fixed. Beta software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss.

It is not fair to make any judgments until you use release. Another thing that you should keep in mind- people who abuse MC Beta 4 DRM don’t allow to downgrade! We ask them to do it, but they don’t want. They prefer to abuse the DRM, but still use the beta.
I believe that more companies fail because of their attitude towards their customers. Small growing companies often do well by being responsive and understanding of their customers concerns and needs.

There are hundreds of people who think that MC should be free. Should we listen to them too? What you offered will not work since this is what we had before and we are basing our decisions on facts, not opinions.



I am fully aware what a Beta is. Normally I would only use an official release. When I upgraded to official release 4 it crashed so I installed 5 beta 2 to see if it had already been fixed. It had not so I contacted your excellent support and we were able to work around the problem. So I stayed with beta as there are no major reasons why not.
My judgement of the final release is still that if both your redundant servers are inaccessible either through your or an external (internet, DNS) fault, MC will stop working.

I didn't suggest you do something like giving the software away. I made a perfectly reasonable case as why this DRM solution will most likely cause YOU issues in the future and also why your existing policy is workable if you enforce it.
I have no intention of repeating myself or carrying on this conversation since you have already made your mind up.

Good Luck,
Geoff

brendanh
Posts: 154
Joined: 07 Apr 2007

Postby brendanh » 11 Mar 2009

I'm pleased Andrew has stated there is proper network and site redundancy. TSS must remain aware that it is now in the business of running a robust server infrastructure. Programmers aren't necessarily infrastructure experts, so if TSS doesn't have the expertise, I hope it recruits appropriately. I hope there is no reliance on a particular DNS name - there should be fallback to multiple DNS aliases hosted at different ISPs, or else to specific IP addresses.

Traders suffer enough with broker and data downtime, so will have little patience with a charts provider who elects to use a constant-DRM-checking system, but can't run a highly available DRM server infrastructure.

User avatar
arnie
Posts: 1567
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Location: Portugal
Has thanked: 470 times
Been thanked: 503 times

Postby arnie » 11 Mar 2009

Please allow me to be the "devil advocate".

Naturally that no MC user wants to be disconnected in the middle of a trading day. Moreover, in the middle of a trade, but lets face it, aren't we, traders, everyday, surrounded by probable data disruption, meaning, electricity, brokers, ISP, computers and data providers are all services that can produce that data disruption, right?

So, knowing all of this in advance, don't we take measures to protect us, to protect our trades against them?

Imagine that we are in the middle of a trade and we lose our internet connection. That problem generate a $500 loss in our trade. Who's fault is this? Is the ISP fault or yours?

Yours of course. YOU know that from time to time your ISP will fail on providing internet connection. YOU didn't take that fact in consideration when you open your position or tested your system. YOU cannot blame the ISP company for your loss.

Now, regarding MC and its DRM.
I think we all know that there's no perfect software. All TA software suffers from some kind of illness.

Ask any of the TS, AB or WealthLab users and you will find someone that is not happy with the service.
It's impossible to please everybody.

Of course the DRM servers will fail. It's impossible for them not to, but why should that be a problem for us?
Yes, it will be a problem if the servers start to fail every couple of hours but if the problem only appears, on average, lets say, every 2 months (?), what is the problem? I don't think that this average is less than any other of the services discussed earlier.

What we have to do, as traders, is to take that fact in consideration and add it to our trading system.

It's useful to permit all users to have access to Beta versions because this way you have a much higher feedback. Unfortunately, users loose their way in it and forget that they are working with a Beta version, a version only to be tested and not really to apply trading systems in it and trade them.

Again, YOU are the one that should be blamed if YOU loose money while trading and using a beta version. YOU know that beta version normally have bugs, YOU know that beta version sometimes are not stable. YOU know all of this and even then, you continue to use it while trading.

Some users gave possible solutions for the DRM problem and I believe that TSSupport should look at them.

One last thing.

Andrew, you said:
Our decision is final.


Yes it is, I won't argue with that but you must agree with me that this type of phrase is a bit extreme when you are trying to rest your clients regarding the DRM problem.

Regards to all.
Fernando

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 12 Mar 2009

Ok, it's your company. Your decision.
So I suppose that launching this DRM system you will start a 24/24 support service by phone ? An emergency recovery system (24 hours key gives by phone to the customer) or something like that ? On Forex Market our customers are trading 24/24 on very large amounts. They can't suffer any disruption.


Currently our phone support is available from 6:30 AM till 2:00 PM EST. However we are looking for opportunities to cover Australian/Asian trading hours + beginning of morning European trading.
I think the support hours are not relevant in this discussion, because a customer can’t tolerate to wait minutes on the phone while we fix the problems. We’ve created the DRM to be reliable. We expect 99.99% uptime. To eliminate .01% of downtime we have a time out that doesn’t disconnect a user even if the servers down.


Suggestion : why don't you consider a key exchange per install ? Look at some Music Software (Toontrack for example). The customer install its software and run it. The software display a unique Key based on the hardware. Then the customer go to the vendor website, enter the unique key then apply. He get a licence key he have to enter into the software to unlock it.

You can register 2 copy of the same software on two computers at a time. If you want to transfer a licence to a new computer, you can do it online up to 2 times. After 2 transfert you have to call the vendor.

A given licence key cannot run on a different hardware (ok this could be a problem for VMWare user but that depend on what you used to build the Hardware Key).

Fabrice,
Thanks for the idea. I’m not ready to discuss this, because it requires extensive analysis and it is time consuming. We’ve built our DRM already. It works, it is not reliable yet, but the basics concepts are implemented. Now we are adding redundant servers to make it 100% reliable and release a beta to test it. You will judge if it works or not.
I don’t want to discuss opinions. It is not constructive.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 12 Mar 2009

A given licence key cannot run on a different hardware (ok this could be a problem for VMWare user but that depend on what you used to build the Hardware Key).


I am that one VMWare user ...
Our DRM is not a problem for you...

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 12 Mar 2009

I'm pleased Andrew has stated there is proper network and site redundancy. TSS must remain aware that it is now in the business of running a robust server infrastructure. Programmers aren't necessarily infrastructure experts, so if TSS doesn't have the expertise, I hope it recruits appropriately. I hope there is no reliance on a particular DNS name - there should be fallback to multiple DNS aliases hosted at different ISPs, or else to specific IP addresses.

You are right. We are factoring all these things. We’ve built our MCFX servers infrastructure which gives our users 100% up time for a long time. Initially we made many mistakes, but the collected expertise allows us to make DRM reliable.
Our DRM may be 100% uptime, because it is not quote service. If quote service is down for 30 seconds you have a problem, but if DRM is down 5 minutes you will not see any difference, because we don’t turn off real-time. It makes difference, very big difference.



Traders suffer enough with broker and data downtime, so will have little patience with a charts provider who elects to use a constant-DRM-checking system, but can't run a highly available DRM server infrastructure.


Again it is not constant-DRM-checking system. This is a very important thing. I hope I was clear.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 12 Mar 2009



Of course the DRM servers will fail. It's impossible for them not to, but why should that be a problem for us?
Yes, it will be a problem if the servers start to fail every couple of hours but if the problem only appears, on average, lets say, every 2 months (?), what is the problem? I don't think that this average is less than any other of the services discussed earlier.



OK, I will repeat to make it clear. You will see a problem only if all our 3 servers (maybe more servers) will be down for several minutes. It is hard to imagine, but possible. This is why we say that there is no risk free systems. However I don’t believe it will ever happen.
I’m a trader like you and I trade thru IB TWS. The last time I put a trade, TWS just disappeared. I restarted it and tried to put the trade again, but Russian Ruble futures contract was a half of thousand more expensive, because it is volatile and illiquid. I understand that it is TWS fault, but I understand that there is no 100% reliable system. I wasn’t happy, but I can live with it. I accept it. You just need to live with our DRM too.

Everything has its price. We must have DRM to sell more. If you want to have a good product in a year or two you should support us. It is very important in the current economic recession. You've invested in MultiCharts and you are interested in MultiCharts success and development as much as we are.

I appreciate all your input, but I’m not going to continue this discussion since I must focus on a new beta. I’m sure I said more than enough.
Thank you for your time and efforts.

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6523
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 957 times
Been thanked: 1883 times

Postby TJ » 12 Mar 2009

Again it is not constant-DRM-checking system. This is a very important thing. I hope I was clear.


I think this is the perceived problem many people have: that as soon as MC cannot call home, MC will stop working. And that there is only one DRM server.

I hope Andrew will build some intelligence into the DRM; if the user is a known good guy. e.g. his copy only logs in on one computer from one location, then his MC would call home less often. ;-)

jek
Posts: 163
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Been thanked: 2 times

Postby jek » 12 Mar 2009

I actually never informed TSS of MC wrongly calculating functions. So TSS should not be blamed for this. I perceive proper / improper functions' calculation a minor issue.

At the risk of continuing a thread hijack, can you say briefly if the problem was "deep" or "shallow"?

i.e. was it a library function or a basic mistake in the way that calculations are done?

jek
Posts: 163
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Been thanked: 2 times

Postby jek » 14 Mar 2009

I just had a situation with DRM that I launched 2 instances of MC one after the other. While the first instance was powering up, the second one said it couldn't authorize.

Closing and reopening the second MC once things loaded and settled down resulted in an authorized instance.

Perhaps this is a race condition?

Beta 4.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 14 Mar 2009

I just had a situation with DRM that I launched 2 instances of MC one after the other. While the first instance was powering up, the second one said it couldn't authorize.

Closing and reopening the second MC once things loaded and settled down resulted in an authorized instance.

Perhaps this is a race condition?

Beta 4.


It is a confirmed issue. It will be fixed in Beta 5.

User avatar
RobotMan
Posts: 375
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Location: Los Altos, California, USA
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Postby RobotMan » 16 Mar 2009

Hi Andrew,

I don't know if you still need this info, but:

Started up MC this morning (16Mar09 0714 PDT) and was shown screen (DRM-1.jpg) saying that I would not receive real-time data. I clicked "ok" and MC continued to load. I noticed that, sure enough, it was "not authorized" (DRM-2). However, it WAS receiving real-time data and and had downloaded history and recomputed all indicators.

I have been running it for about 15 minutes and everything seems to run fine except it never showed the little green "authorized" status.

Logs are attached.

Thanks!
Attachments
Logs.zip
(96.93 KiB) Downloaded 45 times
DRM-2.jpg
DRM-2.jpg (3.32 KiB) Viewed 1643 times
DRM-1.jpg
DRM-1.jpg (11.01 KiB) Viewed 1648 times

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 16 Mar 2009

Bob,
Thank you very much for the defect report.
It has been fixed. We are completing Beta 5.

User avatar
RobotMan
Posts: 375
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Location: Los Altos, California, USA
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Postby RobotMan » 16 Mar 2009

Here's one thing I didn't realize.
If you double click on "Not Authorized" a window with your registration info pops up. If you click "ok" MC will now "Authorize". I don't have to shut down and restart MC.
Nice.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 16 Mar 2009

that's right.

brendanh
Posts: 154
Joined: 07 Apr 2007

Postby brendanh » 23 Mar 2009

One issue that hasn't been addressed is data protection. We are now sending undisclosed information to TSS under the banner of DRM. Please can we have a statement explaining what information is being sent to TSS servers.

I expect some PC hardware info is sent that is used to construct the licence. Has anyone done a network trace?
Last edited by brendanh on 23 Mar 2009, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 23 Mar 2009

Your claim regarding the credit card information sounds very offensive.
Who did give you the right to publicly claim such things on our home page? It is very hard to serve people who consider you as a cheater a priori.
We will not serve you until you apologize for your absurd claim.

To all other users:
The data we send to our servers to authorize is:
UserID (available in About)
Username/password
MC version.

brendanh
Posts: 154
Joined: 07 Apr 2007

Postby brendanh » 23 Mar 2009

Sorry Andrew. The last sentance was meant as light relief (ie a joke), did you really think I thought we were uploading our DNA to TSS? Sometimes British humour doesn't travel well :-) I will remove it anyway. Many thanks for your quick reply.

Fabrice Daniel
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Been thanked: 2 times

Postby Fabrice Daniel » 23 Mar 2009

Hi Andrew,

Finaly, your DRM method sounds right for my use. Forget my "hardware key" idea. It's not so good, even for my own usage. I use several different computers but not at the same time, don't worry, I always pay everything ... even 100% of my music ... but this is because I'm musician :-).

So I use different computer depending on where I am and what I have to do.

- A macbook for my everyday use with XP runing under VMWare
- A big quad core mainly for demanding backtest (now rarely)
- A netbook (samsung nc 10) for transport and travels - mainly to write and check ideas anytime/anywhere

MC run fine on a netbook, it's very amazing, Easy Langage is very efficient in this context (transport & travels) because it's simple to test an idea from scratch in a very short time.

For the moment I only need one instance runing at the same time, no mater the usage (real time or offline backtest). So with the DRM I will be able to continue to use it exactly the same maner I did with TS. That's sounds good for me.

For the moment I don't trade automaticaly so I don't have to block a system 24/5 (Forex Trading). Today I can start/stop, switch on and off from a computer to another but in the near future I will probably start automatic trading and I don't want to take the risk of running a backtest and modifying any scripts on the same MC instance than the one where my system run.

Will it be possible to purchase another licence at a reduced price ? and do you plan to provide an even smaller price with a "no realtime" version only dedicated to research and backtesting but not to trading?

Regards

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 24 Mar 2009

Hi Fabrice!
You don’t have to purchase the second license. All you need to do is to run you backtesting computer first. Then run your autotrading box and it will disconnect your first PC (backtesting). Until you double click on Unauthorized button and after press OK, your backtesting PC will never drop off the autotrading box.

Fabrice Daniel
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Been thanked: 2 times

Postby Fabrice Daniel » 24 Mar 2009

Great, thanks for this precision Andrew.

User avatar
Andrew Kirillov
Posts: 1589
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Postby Andrew Kirillov » 25 Mar 2009

You are welcome!

SUPER
Posts: 622
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Postby SUPER » 29 Mar 2009

Andrew,

DRM is playing havoc today, the nightmare scenario we all dreaded has happened much sooner then thought. The claims of stability of your DRM are shattered the least I can state.

Will we have such outages on "Regular Trading Days", raises serious question of Multichart reliability.

:evil: :evil:

User avatar
RobotMan
Posts: 375
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Location: Los Altos, California, USA
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Postby RobotMan » 29 Mar 2009

I hope they reconsider this pop-up (see attached).
First you would be pissed, then you would be scared.
Awesome.
Attachments
NotAuthorized.jpg
NotAuthorized.jpg (25.53 KiB) Viewed 1674 times


Return to “MultiCharts”