Why does the default config for installation try to install in the wrong order?

[Root_Canal]

NI recommends installing the developers suite in this order: Application software, Add-on modules Add-on-toolkits NI device drivers 'other stuff' Yet, the NI installation program automatically defaults to installing device drivers whenever you try to install any application software, instead of waiting to maintain the 'proper' order of installation. What the heck? am I installing this stuff the wrong way?

[aeastet]

During the install you can opt out of installing the device drivers. It is a pain and I have always wonder the same thing especially when they are constantly updating the device drivers so they will not work witht the orginal install disks anyway.

You should be able to skip the device driver install on the intial setup.

[Root_Canal]

Thank you for your response. I did skip the device drivers as you recommend. Of course, I had to keep skipping the default driver installation over and over. I became increasingly suspicious that I was installing out of proper order because even though I tried my best to figure out which software disks constituted add-on modules, toolkits and "additional software", the install program prompted me three separate times to reinstall Signal express. So I let it, over and over. Now I am wondering how I would ever install an additional add-on module or toolkit without violating the proper installation order unless I uninstall everything then re-install everything. This is crazy.

It seems that if there is a clearly defined, logical order in which any possible configuration of components should be installed, it would be a very simple matter for the "automatic" installer to politely provide the user with the option of viewing which software packages the current license covers, allow the user to select which packages they wish to install, and prompt the user to insert installation disks in the correct order. You know, like other expensive software packages do. Why does the Labview development team choose to insult the user during the act of installation? Isn't it more professional  to wait until after the program has been installed to reveal the inadequacy of the planning that went into the product?

Forgive me for allowing my reply to digress into a general criticism. I am operating under the assumption that Labview is a great progam and that the code is stable and reliable. However, the silliness of just installing the thing yields an alarming impression that the software is kind of 'slapped together' haphazardly. What I am really looking for here is some reassurance from veteran users that Labview is not a kludge. I don't want to invest a bunch of time writing complicated algorithms with it only to find out that it is really meant to be used as a quick way to interface with hardware, not as a serious, robust programming language.

[aeastet]

I have the same feelings as you on this. I have noticed that a lot more people are getting dissatisfied witht the "Norm" from LabVIEW. I have started using C++ more and just using dll's to plug into LabView when I can not get LabVIEW to do somethings or I find a glitch that I have to pay $2700 for an upgrade to LabVIEW to fix. Maybe National Insturments will get a clue that people are not going to put up with that for long before they find some other way to get something done.