So still, what is the product from the marketplace linked to? - page 6
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
Also, a misunderstanding has surfaced.
I decided to install a clean MT and just plug in my account from MT#2.
As the saying goes - no luck.
I got my account from "their" terminal and it didn't work.
Now I have to conclude that this broker somehow modifies the terminal and you can connect to their server only from a modified terminal...
How will MQ react to this, given that this "their" terminal doesn't work the way it's supposed to?
Or maybe there is a spyware module in the terminal? )))
I first encountered it last week, build 2190.
Downloaded terminal from "their" site and it worked perfectly.
Strange situation.
I encountered this for the first time last week, build 2190.
Downloaded the terminal from "their" website - everything went without any problems.
What a strange situation.
This is another broker ))))
P.S. This is exactly the second of this post...
I changed my video card and fortunately the product activations were not lost. And what exactly is the hardware activation attached to the CPU, RAM, HDD? Maybe someone knows.
No one knows, and MQs don't admit to it. But by analogy - MS Windows is tied to all hardware, but allows up to X% to be replaced for upgrades. I don't remember the exact figure, up to about 30%
Asked the broker's customer service about this situation. Called back, assured them that nothing had been done with MT and asked for more information. I sent it on Monday. So far they are silent.
Asked the broker's customer service about this situation. Called back, assured them that nothing had been done with MT and asked for more information. I sent it on Monday. I did not get any response from them yet.
compare the hash sum of MT hashes from the broker and MT from Metaquotes (you can calculate in totalcomandor, the builds should be the same). in this sense, the broker is only allowed to change the icon in the installer and no more, if otherwise - ouch....
compare hash sums of MT hashes from broker and MT from Metaquotes (you can calculate in totalcomandor, builds should be the same). in this way broker is only allowed to change icon in installer and no more, if otherwise - ouch....
It won't help. I've already replaced the MT#2 exe with MT#1.
Noticed another peculiarity. Downloaded this indicator from MT from MQ.
1. Its size is different from the one downloaded from MT#1.
Let's assume it depends on the build. MT from MQ last test build. But!
2. When you add it to the shared folder on MT#1 and MT#3 it doesn't start, but on MT#2 it does.
I don't understand it at all....
@Renat Fatkhullin,@Sergey Golubev maybe you will solve the problem after all?
After all, the product from the market is used in terminals on the same computer, but it runs in some terminals and not in others.
I had a call from the SP broker of the "problematic" terminal. As a result it was agreed that the problem is on the MQ side.
@Renat Fatkhullin,@Sergey Golubev maybe you will solve the problem after all?
After all, the product from the market is used in terminals on the same computer, but it runs in some terminals and not in others.
I had a call from the SP broker of the "problematic" terminal. As a result it was agreed that the problem is on the MQ side.
I've done the experiments in this thread - I haven't noticed any problems.
But I didn't create any shared folders (I have a separate folder for each terminal) and so on ... just installed in different ways - no problem.
Others have also experimented in the branch - also all fine.
Here, if a "possible bug" can be repeated, it can be considered for profixing.
And if only you, and no one else (incl. service desk) can not repeat it - or it really is only on your computer, or not enough technical data to repeat it (maybe your computer has some "features" ...).
The term is floating bug... it's difficult to catch it (it's situational)... and you have a constant ...
-----------------
Just wait for more users to report it (it's like a "repeat in others").
I can't recommend anything else, sorry.
I made some experiments in this thread and didn't notice any problems.
But I didn't create shared folders (I have a separate folder for each terminal) and so on ... just installed in different ways - no problems.
Others have also experimented in the branch - also all fine.
Here, if a "possible bug" can be repeated, it can be considered for profixing.
And if only you, and no one else (incl. service desk) can not repeat it - or it really is only on your computer, or not enough technical data to repeat it (maybe your computer has some "features" ...).
The term is floating bug... it's difficult to catch it (it's situational)... and you have a constant ...
-----------------
Just wait for more users to report it (get a kind of - "replication in others").
I can't recommend anything else, sorry.
Thank you for your reply.
And I don't have any problems in my own folder. It's in the shared folder. But it shouldn't be like that. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there is a flaw in the "binding to the hardware" of the product.