UGM webinar 14th May presentations

[DMorini]

All,

Thanks for your attendance at the UGM last week!

It was great to see so many of you joining the webinar.

Please find attached webinar presentations.

Questions and follow up's scheduled:

•Henrik V: Future Teststand & .NET support? - Mike NI
•Henrik V: PXI vs YAV switches Depends on the test requirement - 6TL
•Benny: VPC connector quality vs. price 6TL & Columbia
•Christian W: Legacy testers with XP. Backwards compatibility. NI strategy? - Mike NI
•Christian W: LabVIEW current gen vs. NGX NI will continue support both version concurrently many years in the future - Lotte NI

Ideas for the next UGM:

•CLAD Certification? One hour after UGM
•3x10min customer presentations
•UG Community Page for presentations, suggestions etc.

•Topic suggestions to next UGM: Focus around LabVIEW NXG?

•Product presentation + 3 technical presentations?
•Focus on LabVIEW, Teststand, application area or industry next
time?

•Location? Copenhagen, Fredericia
•One day or 3/4 of a day instead?

Please let me know if you have any additional comments and feedbacks.

Thanks!

[Mike_vd]

Thanks for organizing Dennis!

During the meeting, we got a great question from Christian around backwards compatibility and whether NI is considering the same Version-strategy as Windows is currently handling. This is what we got back from Product Planning:

Hi @Mike van Dijk​  In LabVIEW 2017 we introduced backwards-compatible run-time engine capability to try and alleviate some upgrade issues such that built binaries (PPL, EXE, etc.) could work on later versions of the run-time engine so you do not need to rebuild/retest that validated code as often. Version information listed here https://www.ni.com/en-us/support/documentation/compatibility/17/labview-and-labview-run-time-engine-.... Has the group seen this?

Along the same vein, for RT systems we introduced the ESSV-Extended SW Support Version, please check the 2/14 PMA for more details.

For longer term planning we are considering how to approach forward compatible software support now that we are in a package-based software delivery world.

If anyone has ideas on how to tackle forward-compatible software support, we're open to feedback!

Mike