Leaderboard

So I whipped up a little table that correlates the locations from 'Get System Directory.vi' and the Windows Installer variables (used with the built-in install builder) with Windows XP and Windows 7. None of the locations that you can easily get to via Get System Directory and Windows Installer are appropriate for a machine-wide config file. If you create the config file at run time instead of installing it, the Public Documents tag for Get System Directory will work. You can avoid having them show up in each users' My Documents folder by stripping "Documents" and appending "AppData\MyApp\MyApp.ini." It's not ideal, but it's workable. Windows 7 has a %PUBLIC% environment variable that maps directly to Users\Public, but that variable doesn't exist in XP so it's not much help with cross-os compatibility.

I added it back.

Another neat feature is there is now an iPhone App that has been released to read and participate on the forums. However it only works with the newest forum version which we will be installing on Saturday.

I used to have that problem in the development environment. No network - Quick loads. Network - it would hang for a looong time on startup. It turns out there was a link to a vi that no longer existed in my project. For some reason LV went hunting for it even tho I didn't use it. I'm not sure if this will help with a built application, but it might give you a place to start looking...

This game is fun, and I think it accesses that part of the brain where LabVIEW lives. http://pleasingfungus.com/

QUOTE (normandinf @ Oct 7 2008, 07:24 AM) It isn't actually patented any more. The patent expired on Valentine's Day, 2007. But that does still leave the question: How could it ever have been patented? Story Time! When I started working at NI, Jeff Kodosky, founder of company and father of LabVIEW, gave a presentation to the new hires about how NI tries to only apply for valid patents and tries to avoid filing for the silly patents that have plagued software development over the decades. We don't always have the option because in the current patent system, if you don't apply for something, a competitor may apply for it and put you out of business. But by and large, NI has been good about this. A couple days later, waiting for a long compile, I was scrolling through the list of NI patents. And I found a patent on "use of rectangles in a graphical programming language." The patent had Jeff K as the author. And I went to Jeff and I said, "Really? Rectangles? You can't believe this was a valid patent!" As Jeff K explained, the titles on patents never tell the full story. :-) Here's the background: In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the concept of a dataflow programming first formed in various academic settings. A number of papers were published talking about how useful these languages could be in expressing parallelism. There was just one hitch -- no one could express a loop. My understanding (from Jeff) is that the syntax notation for a loop eluded everyone for over 10 years. People tried dotted lines along wires, codas (like in music to jump to a different point in the score), and a host of other things. Nothing could satisfactorally express a loop until Jeff K came up with the idea of structured dataflow and expressing the loop as a rectangle or other enclosing form. In retrospect it seems obvious, but according to Jeff it took him a full year of doodling (and not getting much else done for the young NI corporation) to hit upon the idea. The ideal was novel, clearly non-obvious at the time of discovery, and a significant R&D investment. Thus it justified being patented. The patent actually covered the concept of structured graphical data flow programming, the idea that a region of code -- not a particular wire segment or dataflow instruction -- was how programmers should specify flow-of-control notation for the program. And that's how you get a patent on For Loops.