asbo

If you prepend start with an at sign, it's the same as calling ECHO OFF before it, so the command won't be printed to the cmd window. The System Exec VI is preferably (if you don't like API) because all you have to do is append your directory to "explorer" and you're set.

Despite being yet another ActiveX, the Office Web Components are kind of handy if you need integrated display. It doesn't support XLS natively, though, so there might be some finagling involved.

I'm curious how this came to be. Is it licensing issues?

So are we only considering skinning a viable exercise if it's feasible at run-time? Don't custom controls constitute skinning (or at least the capacity to)? In any event, I (tentatively) agree with crelf - skinning could be handy, but LV really isn't geared for pretty interfaces and many of the industries it's used in don't care what the thing looks like as long as it Just Works Right.

There's no guarantee that between the compiled code of helloworld.vi in 8.5 isn't radically different from the compiled code of helloworld.vi in 8.6, given the number of changes (optimizations, added/removed nodes, low-level stuff in general) between versions. For the sake of argument, assume there is binary compatibility - those VIs won't run in any different RTE without a recompile, so what's the point? Or perhaps that simply defines that there is no binary compatibility.

I reckon it's a poor assumption that crelf was trying to demonstrate a sarcastic emoticon. ps. Don't look at the filename, it ruins my quip.

I feel like I'm obligated to post in this thread now.

Ohhh, that reminds me of I saw with superconductors. Not sure they'll let you bring liquid nitrogen into a kindergarten classroom though ...

I remember an issue with LabVIEW crashing if you CTRL+Drag'd linked tunnels. I haven't run into it yet, but it's certainly made me wary of them.

I believe your reckoning on the RTE quitting out because there were no open FP is correct. Rather than have an arbitrary wait, you should use a notifier (or the like) so your main UI can signal to the launcher when it has actually opened. If you ever have to troubleshoot on a slower machine, you'll thank yourself

I might be off-base here, but that sounds like a job for an XControl. Just drop a boolean on the facade VI and you can manipulate the Blinking property as appropriate.

Perhaps the easiest way to start debugging is throw some state loggers which will immediately write to disk. This way, you can at least get an idea of which SM is where when the code quits. You could also put loggers onto your error wires and see if there's anything suspicious going on there.

It quarantined an INI file? Definitely a false alarm ... though how it came to be recognized as a virus is perplexing.

It would be a privilege to lay a hand on your Sat-unn.

This should treat the root of your issue: Microsoft KB 319114

Well, I guess there's that ...

Big downside to this is that (I don't think) you can feed it code to display from memory; it has to be passed a proper URI, which would necessitate a file on disk.

I'm going to go a step farther and say that it might even be a good idea.

I totally feel elite for knowing what's going on

I daresay we're looking at the same issue. The is a way to get back to the full edit page somehow ... I think I had to turn off JavaScript and do a couple of force-refreshes in order to get all the AJAXy-ness to go away.

I wouldn't entirely agree - paths are representative of a file system hierarchy and "\\server" is a completely valid node in the UNC hierarchy, regardless of whether standard file system I/O function with that path. In any event, it seems kind of like LabVIEW is going out-of-scope by deciding that because you can't enumerate that path, you should be given it to work with. It's somewhat similar to LabVIEW deciding to not return "dir" from "c:\dir" when you don't have permissions to "c:\dir". Moreover, LabVIEW will happily crunch out paths on for invalid drive letters all day long. hooovahh was kind enough to walk by while I was typing this and mention, "Look! Someone on the Internet is wrong!" ...

I like your logic - I wouldn't -want- it to have more advanced functionality. It's not a Strip and Validate Path, it's just Strip Path. A context-menu setting for validation would be acceptable, but I would contest that getting "\\server" and "dir" should be the proper behavior for a Strip Path node.

Whoever gave you rep for this post deserves a beating. Everyone knows emoticons are only for those who lack telepathy, and, frankly, those kind of people don't belong on the Internets in the first place.

Dirty rotten swindler ... People like you are the reason we can't rely on the honor system!