What would it take to get everyone to finally switch to MT5? (collecting opinions) - page 64
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
If someone didn't buy the software, what money would companies use to develop it?
I agree, it sounds strange, but without paid software it would hardly be free.
In fact, on the subject of progress, it comes to mind:
I agree, it sounds strange, but it would hardly be free without paid software.
Based on progress which, as it turns out, rapes 99% of user-owned technology resources and parasitises the consumer through high-tech interactive networks, then software like Windows should be paid for by the user, not the other way round. And not everyone would do it, if he had a real choice.
There is a man who writes about miserable interface, for example. And for the money and such system requirements, you could develop an OS in the form of a constructor or puzzle with an open and clear processual design and an absolute choice of modules to use. Plug and play, and the rest could be archived or burned. Nothing unnecessary and incomprehensible. That would be progress. But when you're being sold an as-is product, which makes things unclear and unclear why, with lots of hidden processes, which can't be moderated (or even detected) by the user...
Such progress would have been unacceptable in the days when instead of robots there were living brains in the head, not detached from the surrounding reality.
There is a man who writes about a miserable interface, for example. And for the money and such system requirements, one could develop an OS in the form of a constructor or a puzzle with an open and clear processual and an absolute choice of modules to be used. Plug and play, and the rest could be archived or burned. Nothing unnecessary and incomprehensible. That would be progress. But when you're being sold an as-is product, which makes things unclear and unclear why, with lots of hidden processes, which can't be moderated (or even detected) by user...
So there is such an operating system - linux - and you don't have to pay for anything.
That's the way it is - linux - and you don't have to pay for anything.
You have to pay for everything everywhere.
When you decide to save money on public transport and walk happily about what you've saved, you've actually saved some money, but you've also paid with time.
This is a technical resource, but instead of technocrats, it's all demagoguery and populism. But let's leave the discussion of technology aside.
It is better to give yourselves answers to questions:
Renat Fatkhullin:
7. Who in reality makes the decisions?
" If I asked people what they wanted, they would ask for a faster horse." (c) Henry Ford
You write it all right, but the start of MT5 was not the best (changing the order system work, no counter positions, no easy access to timeseries...),
that's how many years it's been and the opinion that MT4 has remained better, alas, what's done is done
your programmers won't have any problem developing some #property emulation_mt4 directive
which will do nothing more than:
1. expand indicator arrays of buffers like in MT4 ( ArraySetAsSeries() )
2. it will return usual Bid, Ask, Day(), Hour().....
3. MT4 OrderSend()..... trading functions will work
all this was mostly implemented by the members of this forum, it is clear that this is a step backward, but it is also a step forward in relation to increasing the number of MT5 users
If you read the technodocuments, you might get the impression that technology itself makes the decisions, because such a brute as man is inferior to technology in every respect. Accordingly, no one can make any real decisions under these conditions. Everyone is pressured by a kind of progress, the sources of which are hard to pinpoint with a cursory glance. Developers, investors and users are all held hostage by progress. Again, for this reason, all groups can go against their own interests under pressure from 'development'.
And if you delve deeper into the goals of investment, it's not ruble or money that's being invested. The issues are much more substantial.
But when it comes to the technical aspects, I personally don't understand the main one: why should the new one necessarily destroy the previous one and not develop it? Why can't familiar functions be maintained in existing formats? That is, what is the fundamental difference between the basic processes that worked in the old versions of the software and those that remain in the new versions of the software?
I'm not in any way criticising the development of this resource specifically. It's a bit of a departure from the topic here, as in passing we're talking about Microsoft and the progress that's being made globally. But as I understand it, MT4 and MT5 platforms are so incompatible with each other that even to move an account (which seems to belong to a broker, not tied to a platform) from one to the other is impossible. That said, from the user's perspective, the same basic functions happen identically. Orders open the same way and close the same way. Am I right in saying that with respect to a trading account, except for opening and closing positions, nothing critical is done from the platform? The analysis, indicators, charts and other processes - it is a product of the platform, which remains within it, and does not affect the trading operations taking place in the account, except on the basis of this product provided by the tools of algotrading.
I can understand that older versions are not capable of handling new formats. But if the opposite is true, then how is it that moving to a more advanced platform causes all the previous developments to be overridden? Why is it that the new, more advanced one is unable to handle the old, more primitive one? Something falls out of logic when it comes to development and progress. As far as I understand, the developers of both platforms are the same. Improvement is a natural and understandable aspiration. But why is it necessary to pit one platform against the other? What prevents simple familiar features from being maintained at the expense of more advanced technology?
Maybe for super heads I am asking too primitive questions. But for us mere mortals, the questions are perfectly valid and adequate. Can we explain it to the dumb common people so that it would fit into our meager resources of understanding? After all, while iron can be bought and replaced, brains are provided as is. And here the level of comprehension is not limited by the ruble.
It is better to give yourself answers to the questions:
If you want honest and frank answers, ask on a site where you are not an administrator, but an ordinary user
That's why there are 7 provisional questions ahead of the quoted one.
Answer them and everything will become clear. That you don't understand the reasons and have no understanding of technology at all.
If you want honest and frank answers, ask on a site where you are not an administrator, but an ordinary user
I know the answers, just patiently trying to point people in the direction of where reality lives.
We have a fairly liberal platform here. Just what hasn't been expressed in this thread alone.
Technical claims and battles over technology topics with obligatory factoids are welcome. Those who cross the line or simply start to be malicious, go to ban.