LabVIEW.INI - New Features Brainstorming Entry

[Phillip Brooks]

Submit your current LabVIEW.INI and your suggestions on how to improve the Tools>>Options dialog in LabVIEW.

http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...age.id=405#M405

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (Phillip Brooks @ Aug 29 2008, 07:43 AM)

Submit your current LabVIEW.INI and your suggestions on how to improve the Tools>>Options dialog in LabVIEW.

http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...age.id=405#M405

Oppertunity?

These types of calls for info end up being concidered representative of the cummunity at large.

Before I send mine I'd like to here from Y'all which ini tokens you are using so I can include those in my ini. Think if it as "stuffing the ballot box" with votes for scripting etc.

If they go through this study and don't find an entry for something we use, we can assume that option is going to fall away.

"Just messing with the system"

Ben

[Darren]

Instead of submitting an artificial INI file, the study would probably be more effective if you submitted your actual INI file, then encouraged everybody (who would have been supplying you with INI tokens you don't use) to submit theirs as well.

-D

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (Darren @ Aug 29 2008, 11:33 AM)

Instead of submitting an artificial INI file, the study would probably be more effective if you submitted your actual INI file, then encouraged everybody (who would have been supplying you with INI tokens you don't use) to submit theirs as well.

-D

Hi Darren,

My concern is rarely used tokens being dropped.

e.g.

The token that tells LV to show the full file path in the Hiearchy screen. I feel the few people use the hiearchy screen as much as I do and of those fewer still want to see the full file path.

If I am the only person that submits an ini with that token used, then that token may be dropped.

So if we work together on the token we do not want to see removed, then we are protecting ourselves from loosing options that we may not all individually use. By cooperating we can avoid potential losses of functionality.

I'm open to hearing what others have to say (either by their responses of their silence).

Ben

[Darren]

I understand your concern, but if we just receive a bunch of INI files full of the same tokens (because everybody stuffed their files with tokens everybody else uses), the study provides NI with no useful information, and this benefits no one.

So do what you want, but I feel that the best way for this study to benefit the LabVIEW community would be for everybody to submit the INI files they actually use.

-D

[gmart]

QUOTE (Darren @ Aug 29 2008, 09:50 AM)

I understand your concern, but if we just receive a bunch of INI files full of the same tokens (because everybody stuffed their files with tokens everybody else uses), the study provides NI with no useful information, and this benefits no one.

So do what you want, but I feel that the best way for this study to benefit the LabVIEW community would be for everybody to submit the INI files they actually use.

-D

Plus the fact that we have your INI token that you care about, places it in the ">0" bucket :thumbup:

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (Darren @ Aug 29 2008, 11:50 AM)

I understand your concern, but if we just receive a bunch of INI files full of the same tokens (because everybody stuffed their files with tokens everybody else uses), the study provides NI with no useful information, and this benefits no one.

So do what you want, but I feel that the best way for this study to benefit the LabVIEW community would be for everybody to submit the INI files they actually use.

-D

OK Darren.

I'll play the game by the rules. I am goinfg to have to work to collect all of them since I don't have all of the same setting in all of my ini's since I don't need all of them all of the time but will go grab them when I need it.

Could you urge the people involved in this effort to please run the list of tokens that will be eliminated through the "LAVA grinder" (or at least the LabVIEW Champions forum) before work is started?

Sorry about making trouble!

Ben

[Darren]

QUOTE (neB @ Aug 29 2008, 11:00 AM)

Could you urge the people involved in this effort to please run the list of tokens that will be eliminated through the "LAVA grinder" (or at least the LabVIEW Champions forum) before work is started?

The "authorities" have been notified of your concern.

-D

Edit: The authorities say that even if we remove a setting from Tools > Options, it is highly unlikely that we would remove it as an INI token as well.

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (Darren @ Aug 29 2008, 12:10 PM)

The "authorities" have been notified of your concern.

-D

Thank you Darren!

Ben

[TobyD]

Even if we're not going to rig the study results :ninja: , I would be curious to hear what everyone's favorite ini tokens are. I'm more interested in the ones that don't appear in tools-->options. What are the first things you add after a new install of LabVIEW?

One of my favorites is StructuresFadeToDiagramBeneath=True. I deal with a lot of code written by people who never learned the right way to do things and this helps me figure out where their wires are actually going.

[Francois Normandin]

As I reviewed my configuration file, I noticed this key doesn't work on 8.6 anymore (works on 8.5):

SuperFunkyPrivateSpecialSecretForumStuff=LAVA

[TobyD]

QUOTE (normandinf @ Sep 2 2008, 09:10 AM)

As I reviewed my configuration file, I noticed this key doesn't work on 8.6 anymore (works on 8.5):

SuperFunkyPrivateSpecialSecretForumStuff=LAVA

Michael mentioned that http://LabVIEW-86-Released-t11544.html&st=15&start=15#' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">here. It was fun while it lasted.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

I think you should be honest. Even if it means leaving ini keys that are not supported like:

SuperSecretPrivateSpecialStuff=True

SuperPrivateScriptingFeatureVisible=True

I'm sure all of the LAVA members have those on. Regardless, it sends a message. I disagree with adding stuff you don't really use.

Also, I don't mind to have stuff "fall away". Ya, I'm reeealy gonna miss "just-in-time" advice. No really? No, you're serious? That one is an example of a feature that everyone hated, but instead of removing it, NI decided to leave it in but turn it off by making the default FALSE. What is the point? If you want to improve the Options window try putting it on a diet and only include stuff that has an impact. The Options windows is what it is. A place to enable or disable stuff and it seldom gets a visit beyond the initial LV install and setup. Don't redesign it, trim it down.

I just had to go through setting up a JKI virtual machine so I had to go through 4 LV versions to setup this stuff so it's still fresh in my mind. Here's my list of the LabVIEW options that should be removed and replaced with defaults (in brackets). I decide to skip the ones I consider personal preference since you can argue all day about that. These are a no-brainer in my opinion.

1. The entire "Paths" category should be removed (LV defaults).
   
2. The entire "Colors" category should be removed (LV defaults).
   
3. The entire "Fonts" category should be removed (LV defaults).
   
4. The entire "Revision History" category should be removed (LV defaults).
   
5. Play animated images (TRUE)
   
6. Blink Delay (1000ms)
   
7. Use transparent name labels (True)
   
8. Use transparent free labels (True)
   
9. Delete/copy panel terminals from diagram (True)
   
10. Place subVIs as expandable (False)
    
11. Show dots at wire junctions (True)
    
12. Show tip strips over terminals (True)
    
13. (Diagram Cleanup) Move controls to the left of the containing diagram (True)
    
14. (Diagram Cleanup) Move indicatorsto the right of the containing diagram (True)
    
15. Show data flow during execution highlighting (True)
    
16. Auto probe during execution highlighting (True)
    
17. Treat read-only VIs as locked (True)
    
18. Do not save automatic changes (True)
    
19. Enable Just-In-Time Advice (False)
    
20. Maximum undo steps per VI=99
    

So there ya go. Yup, that's a lot of stuff but if I had my way I'd chop some more. I'm being nice.