LabVIEW Idea Exchange

As you can read in the link below the licence manager uses the MAC addresses of a computer to create computer ID used for the activation process.

The trouble is that when you use a NI PCIe 8235 (Quad-Port GigE Vision Frame Grabber) you are adding 4 Ethernet ports to you computer and any change to any of these ports (even a fix IP change of one of the ports) will change the computer ID and therefore you will need to re-activate all your NI products... As day to day users we simply cannot work that way.

The knowledge base article below explains that in such cases we can get the hard drive serial number, send it to NI and they'll give us a computer ID based on that HDD serial instead of the computer ID given by the licence manager and we can then use it for the activation process.

The point of this idea is to ask NI to improve the licence manager so we don't have to go through this issues, I think the licence manager should inform the user about what the computer ID is based on and tell him about the options (MAC address or HDD serial) and let him choose between the 2.

How Can I Change the Hardware Used for Activation of NI Software? 

PS :

and now that we're talking about improving that damn licence manager, you can refactor it to include other ideas such as :

- Smartphone application to activate NI Software

- Add a QR Code (2D Bar Code) Option To NI Product Activation Dialog

[admin edit]

I am copying the workaround posted by crossrulz in the comments to benefit users having these issues who find this idea:
"Here is a work around if you want to play around in the Windows registry:

In "Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\National Instruments\License Manager" add a string value named "DiskOnly" and set it to "true".  The license manager will now only use the HDD serial number."

At present we can select only a single VI on "RightClick>Select VI" option in Block diagram. It would be much helpful if we can select multiple VIs at the same time. Image for reference

Present Method

Proposed Method

I find myself asking two questions fairly frequently.  (1) Why is the Select function on the Comparisons palette?  (2) Why isn't the Select function on the Boolean palette?

Not only is the Boolean palette the proper location (IMO) for the conditional operation (not a comparison), but that palette appears in the right-click menu for items in both the Comparison palette as well as the Boolean palette.

Currently it is only possible to hide/unhide the frame of a subpanel by activating the context menu with a right-click.

Please add Frame.Visible to the list of subpanel properties.

I can search for objects from the Find dialog, but I would also like to initiate the same search by right-clicking on a function in my block diagram.

I would simply like to add the VI Documentation to the Icon Editor so that when you create the Icon for a VI you can also edit the documentation at the same time. This might help increase VI documentation overall if it was done at the same time as the icon.

I've been working with a ton of different projects lately, and I am frequently changing properties settings on them. I instinctively press Ctrl-I to launch the properties dialog, then I sit and wait a few seconds before I realize that Ctrl-I doesn't do anything in the Project Window, and I have to go right-click the top-level project item and choose Properties instead. Let's make Ctrl-I launch the Project Properties dialog, just like it launches the VI Properties dialog for VIs.

The For/While Loop conditional indexing feature (new in LV 2012) is neat but so far only accepts a Boolean. That's departing with the behavior of the Case Structure selector terminal, which accepts error clusters:

<----------- I'd like to connect the error cluster wire in the For Loop directly to the indexing condition terminal

(the case structure outside is just here to show what I mean by connecting an error cluster to the condition terminal of the Case Structure).

Of course the workaround is simple (as shown), but why introduce an even simpler approach for the Case Structure and not offer it here?

Edit: The obvious objection is that some will want to index when there is an error, other when there is none, which in fact might be best handled by the approach shown above. An error cluster connection would need a different contextual menu as well (index on error or index on no error).