Val Brown

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Aug 29 2007, 09:50 AM) Yes. I'm all for "openness" and "accessibility" and I've enjoyed my days of hacking deep in the bowels of a variety of language constructs but I think this is really not consistent with LV, at least as I understand LV and as far as I understand what you're presenting in your example.

QUOTE(jdunham @ Sep 17 2007, 11:19 AM) I think this is one of major concerns about all of this -- does it really add value?

Absolutely, I generally use the Configuration VIs to read/write to standard format INI files for data that should persist for each launch of an application. It's importnat to remember thought that such INI files will need be able to be accessed using default "read/write" permission in Vista in protected paths, such as <WINDOWA>, <PROGRAM FILES>, etc. Such data should be placed in <USER NAME> dependant locations of other non-UAC protected paths on Vista systems. I actually also use the Registry read/write VIs for data that should persist for the appliction itself, so "intallation" information. So it really depends on what kind of information you're concerned about. And, as always, there are some good examples included in the LV documentation. I also suspect that OpenG has good tools for these purposes but I don't know anything more specific about what is available there.

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Sep 10 2007, 10:15 PM) OK, OK, I've only been at RSS now for a very short while and some of it IS pretty good. Is it supposed to pop me back to the "old" format when I try to reply to something in the RSS feed? Or is that simply because I don't know what I'm doing?? And, yes Mike -- great job at keeping this going, updating it all, etc, etc. [sounds of thuderous applause]

QUOTE(Jim Kring @ Sep 10 2007, 07:09 PM) Thanks for the suggestion -- that's what I'm doing. I just really don't like it. Or perhaps I'm not used to it but am still used to using the "View New Posts" option to, well, actually View New Posts. Maybe I'm missing something here but, why have the item/option if it doesn't work? If it's ONLY going to push you to a generic Search window then call it "Search". But let me approach this another way -- what can I do from RSS to "View New Posts"? ie, if I use ALT-J or the RSS icon up on my IE toolbar, I go to what looks like a single page "precise" of the last post for a thread. Is there something I missed on THAT page to perform navigate around more effectively? As Dr. Evil might say: "Throw me a bone"

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Sep 10 2007, 09:39 AM) Perhaps it's "better but it doesn't work for me at all now while I'm traveling. All I have äccess to is IE at what amounts to an Internet Cafe. Does this mean that "View New Posts"will now really mean: "Generic Search Window""?

QUOTE(diluculo @ Sep 10 2007, 02:49 AM) You can read and write to the Registry in Vista, you just can't write EVERYWHERE like used to be possible in XP. Program Files, the Windows path -- all the really "yummy" places are a No-No unless you're an installer routine that has been elevated, or if you're running as Administrator (which is a REALLY BAD idea). There was a presentation at NI Week where a lot of this was introduced. It might be a good starting point for you.

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Sep 9 2007, 04:48 PM) I've got a good guess on the theme...because skin and style changes are so, uh, robust and inviting. Seems like you had a fun weekend.

QUOTE(TG @ Sep 8 2007, 05:50 PM) Well as the saying goes: I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less... I think NI chose the correct metaphor and implementation for this feature, it's not a bug. Of course we all know that a bug is just a feature of the software (ie something it actually DOES), that someone doesn't like. So, from that perspective it's both a feature and a bug, depending on your preferences, basic orientation/metaphor, anduse of other tools. FWIW, I like it this way.

QUOTE(PJM_labview @ Sep 8 2007, 08:57 AM) No you didn't miss it, I didn't post it -- sorry! I'm using 8.5.

I'm making some progress but it's still very confusing. I saw a prior thread -- I believe that Ben posted -- about optimizing the environment. Giving priority to Background Processes, instead of Programs, has helped quite a bit. It's not the whole solution by a long shot but it is a definite help. Any other suggestions are greatly appreciated.

We can watch all the wireworkers arise from their internet connections and wreck havoc on the land. It will be like "Weekend of the Living Dead" only, hopefully, a lot more fun.

QUOTE(Gary Rubin @ Sep 7 2007, 05:57 PM) Could be, thanks for the idea I'll look into that more specifically. The other odd thing that I'm seeing I completely forgot to mention -- partly because I'm a bit sleep deprived just now but also because it really does seem quite strange. If any of my components have focus and I then click on the Windows Start button, the Start Menu appears but is UNDERNEATH the Windows Taskbar. If, on the other hand, my components are running but I have clicked on the Desktop BEFORE clicking on Start, the Start Menu appear correctly ON TOP of the Windows Taskbar. I can't remember any other time that I've seen the Start Menu UNDERNEATH the Taskbar. OK, so here's ANOTHER really odd thing or at least it's really odd to me. I've just done a build of a file I'll call z.exe and, when I run it on an English-language (North American) version of Vista Ultimate, I see 3 icons show up on the Taskbar. This is the correct, designed for behavior. I'll call these zMain (because it's the "Main UI" component), z1, and z2 (because they are sub-demons), where zMain is the name that shows up in the Windows Title Bar of z.exe when it is running. Again this is the correct, designed for behavior having selected to not use the VI's name but another designated name for the "zMain" VI. However, when I start the exact same z.exe on a European Vista Ultimate system, I see 4 icons showing up on the Taskbar: zMain, z1, z2 AND I also see a separate icon for z.exe. It is the SAME z.exe running on both systems, having the SAME installer run on both systems to install the application. I'm half expecting to see Rod Serling pop out, smoking a cigarette, saying: "You've just entered the Twilight Zone". Any ideas?

I'm seeing some very unusal behavior with a deployed application, but the problem seems to be much more profound on Vista rather than XP and especially on European versions of Vista. It is obviously a complex phenomenon and because of that, and the size of the overall project, it's almost impossible for me to post sample code. I'm trying to develop a small enough code segment to demonstrate the phenomenon but, until I can do that, I thought I'd describe it in some detail and see what ideas others have about what to look at. I have three major components (or demons you might say) that I are dispatched -- and modified during run-time --using Open VI Reference. Communication between the components uses queues (string-based but small "command" text as messages). Heavy cpu-intensive operations for real-time analysis of acquired signals so a large drain of resource even on a modertate to high end system. The system can also call additional components, some third party, and what happens that is curious is that cpu load and balance is DRAMATICALLY impacted by simpy left clicking and holding down that click on one of the window frames. Let me say this another way. While the program is running I can decrease cpu load by "grabbing" the window frame of (any of) the components, as if I wanted to move that window around on the desktop. While the "mouse down" event is happening -- but not in terms of any specific control(!) -- cpu load drops, sometimes quite dramatically. This behavior is more pronounced on some systems, notably European Vista implemenations. I've never seen this kind of behavior before. I suspect that they may be driver-related problems due to Vista (notably in video, audio and mouse/trackpad) but I'm also wondering about what I may be doing (or NOT doing!) that is creating this problem. Would an Event Structure hold so much focus "waiting for" a Mouse Down? Is this some version of another problem that others have seen in terms of built applications? I would really appreciate any ideas that others might have -- it's a real mystery at this point.

QUOTE(Laniru @ Sep 7 2007, 04:53 AM) It appears that you're working with IMAQ functions and I'm afraid I can't be much help with them as I don't use them at all. I'm still not certain from your note though that you can view that particular AVI on that particular computer using WMP. Perhaps you mean to be stating that but, regardless of anything else that is the first place I would look. If this code DOES use IMAQ it's probably a good idea to indicate that in your posting.

Yes, that's a rather likely culprit, along with some others. To test the possiblity of not having the correct CODEC installed for the AVI you want to play, first try accessing and using that AVI from within WMP (Windows Media Player) itself. If you can't use that resource within WMP, you have a problem with the CODEC and need to resolve that first. It's also a good idea to post some sample code when asking a question like this. Seeing the code makes it easier for others to comment, both on the immediate question you've asked but also to provide some additional helpful comments.

QUOTE(dsaunders @ Sep 6 2007, 03:22 PM) Yes, yes and yes. The issue fundamentally for me is support, esp in re: to the fundamental tool itself. QUOTE(dsaunders @ Sep 6 2007, 03:22 PM) These are valid points that each programmer or organization must take into account. I completely agree that changing the way the LabVIEW IDE works from one system to the next is confusing and is a 'hack'. Extending the IDE is the decision of the developer to put additional functionality into the IDE -- that does not mess with the original behavior. Thus any developer would still be able to use it because all the base functionality is the same. So while I think it is cool that I can hijack a Tools menu item, it is also sad that I am breaking the IDE in order to extend it. In the end, there are things I want to do in the IDE that aren't available... So while #1 would be great, and it would allow NI to support everything, I think #2 is necessary. Then you could have a suite of OpenG IDE extensions that aren't incorporated into the distro, but would be used to facilitate coding up the distro. Perhaps but again for me -- and it's probably a minority opinion -- I'm very hesitent to really use such things UNLESS they do come from and are supported by NI. I know some folks swear by ADO for their DB interactions but I prefer to stick with NI's own DCT. Why? Because if/when there's a problem I KNOW where to go to get it resolve, or find out that what I want is impossible with the current tools/options/feature set supplied by NI. I've simply had too many problems in the past with 3rd party "add on" gidgets, widgest, tools, etc -- esp obviously when DLLs are involved. I want to be as pure, simple and direct as possible and to know that, as far as possible, I can simply update to the latest NI release and have very little, if any, problems with my code.

QUOTE(dsaunders @ Sep 5 2007, 11:33 AM) That's precisely the problem IMO and one of the main reasons that, while I support open source efforts (esp things like OpenG!), I will NOT use the tools in any distro. I know that's probably a minority opinion (esp here!) but here are some of my reasons. 1. I pay for Platinum Support so I konw the ONE source I can ALWAYS go to and get, in the end, the Final Answer. Yes, I LOVE the support that we get here ---- [sounds of applause] -- but I don't count on it for distros. I want someone or some entity that is ultimately responsible and actionable if things go south. 2. I want one, single licensing environment so I don't have to worry about whether I've included BSD, BVDs or valentine's that acknowledge the latest Easter Eggs. 3 I want to be able to walk up to ANY system and simply BE ABLE TO USE IT. I do NOT want to know (and I especially don't want to HAVE TO KNOW) that on "this system" CNTL-Q closes an app but on "that system" it launches the missles, so don't forget to call Moscow as soon as possible. I'm all for customizability but I do not want to have to rely on it for me to be able to do my work.

QUOTE(orko @ Sep 2 2007, 05:01 PM) Ah it's good to an old warhorse like me to hear how well that kind of persistence and inheritence can pay off years later.....

QUOTE(yen @ Sep 2 2007, 12:14 PM) I think that frequently it's a matter of what you're used to using. I really LIKE having the dots where a wire branches -- others hate it. But having that draws my attention to it as something I might want to look at and refactor. I like AutoTool and AutoWiring. I use a laptop with a trackpad and having those on means I don't have to move my hands very much at all -- even Tab is available to easily shift the Tool. I strongly displike Express VIs -- probably 'nuff said about that! I also strongly dislike "View as Icon" for BD items. I prefer to really see -- at a glance -- that something there is NOT a VI. And I'm sure I'm not completely alone on this (SOMEONE else must have the same experience) but I still find myself asking why I'm using "VI" since: 1. QUOTE(yen @ Sep 2 2007, 12:14 PM) Stephen, I personally think most of those features are great, except for the snapping to the grid, which I don't like. Maybe I should try using it for a while and see how it works. I think that frequently it's a matter of what you're used to using. I really LIKE having the dots where a wire branches -- others hate it. But having that draws my attention to it as something I might want to look at and refactor. I like AutoTool and AutoWiring. I use a laptop with a trackpad and having those on means I don't have to move my hands very much at all -- even Tab is available to easily shift the Tool. I strongly displike Express VIs -- probably 'nuff said about that! I also strongly dislike "View as Icon" for BD items. I prefer to really see -- at a glance -- that something there is NOT a VI. And I'm sure I'm not completely alone on this (SOMEONE else must have the same experience) but I still find myself asking why I'm using "VI" since: 1. I'm NOT word processing 2. I'm not doing text-based programming 3. and,most importantly, I'm not using Unix or any of its "look alikes" OK so maybe a bunch of you don't know THAT particular reference but, having done my dissertation in ED and THEN become able to "move up" to VI, it still holds a wrong place in my heart.

QUOTE(orko @ Aug 31 2007, 01:47 PM) And to keep seeing how the skinning is progressing as it is happening...

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Aug 30 2007, 09:23 AM) Maybe that's what the US senator said to the undercover cops in the Minneapolis airport bathroom....Or maybe that's what he SHOULD HAVE said.

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Aug 30 2007, 09:14 AM) I work on laptops only so have a trackpad and do this two handed as well -- and don't even have to leave the keyboard! Makes it very easy, at least for me.

QUOTE(crelf @ Aug 29 2007, 08:56 PM) Which brings us back to the starting point of -- do you use the alignment grid? I don't and prefer to do (precise) alignment of FP items later on but, then again, I also like to use a look of custom "look and feel" in the interface. The more STANDARD you want an interface, the more appealing the alignment grid will be, esp with "resize new items to grid" selected.

Did you ever get a solution to this? Also, what was the Connection String that you used to open the FileMake database?