What is stopping you from switching to LabVIEW NXG? - VI server

[Station5]

I would try using LV NXG for small apps if and when certain UI front panel capabilities arrive:

• controls as customizable as in LV CG
• panel colors, decorations, and pasted images as flexible as in CG, including layer order changeability
• panel resizing (with corresponding controls and fonts resizing) at least as good as in CG but preferably much better and more reliable.

It's been a couple of years since I last tried NXG.  I'm sure it has improved in these UI areas.  Do we know how far off robust panel resizing is?

Thanks.

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@Station5 wrote:

It's been a couple of years since I last tried NXG.  I'm sure it has improved in these UI areas.  Do we know how far off robust panel resizing is?

---

Not sure what the status of robust panel resizing is in NXG, but in CG it isn't there at all 😊.

[crossrulz · Accepted solution]

I have a new reason: LabVIEW NXG is going away.

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

I have a new reason: LabVIEW NXG is going away.

---

That's a showstopper for me too.

[RTSLVU]

I always kind of wondered what NI's plans were for NXG.

I mean expecting people to abandon a product that has a 20+ year track record for something that looks pretty but had no other real benefit over the original.

I was still waiting for a reason to even try NXG and now I see that that was never going to happen. I am glad I didn't' waste my time.

Give us a more "modern looking" control set or a "Skinning engine" that makes it simple to change the style, colors, etc. of all the controls and indicators at once.

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I always kind of wondered what NI's plans were for NXG.

---

I don't think this was the plan 😉.

[mcduff]

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I always kind of wondered what NI's plans were for NXG.

---

I don't think this was the plan 😉.

---

Actually never had the chance to use NXG. But this is kind of worrisome. Either NI does not have the resources to properly develop NXG or is less interested in software and more interested in hardware. Does not make me feel real confident in using LabVIEW as a development tool as its future seems in doubt.

mcduff

[billko]

---

@mcduff wrote:

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I always kind of wondered what NI's plans were for NXG.

---

I don't think this was the plan 😉.

---

Actually never had the chance to use NXG. But this is kind of worrisome. Either NI does not have the resources to properly develop NXG or is less interested in software and more interested in hardware. Does not make me feel real confident in using LabVIEW as a development tool as its future seems in doubt.

mcduff

---

They were contemplating stopping meaningful development of LV Classic, meaning that nothing new would be developed in LV Classic that wasn't already planned in NXG.  Rather than contemplating the end of LabVIEW, I see it as freeing LV Classic of its ties to NXG.  It will (re?)absorb NXG and move on.

I was okay with NXG's rough implementation; I could develop a new workflow for that.  I also liked the new look and the layout of the IDE.  Having no virtual libraries hurt somewhat, but I got over it.  But there were design choices that made it impossible for me to develop a workaround for.  That is when I ceased playing with NXG.  For anything even moderately complex, I had no solution.

[johntrich1971]

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I mean expecting people to abandon a product that has a 20+ year track record for something that looks pretty but had no other real benefit over the original.

---

Well, some of us thought the same about DAQmx when it first came out. Why go with something totally different when what you have works? Now I would ask why not DAQmx. I think that NI was trying to make a change for the better, and I like some of what I saw with NXG (I have only briefly played with it), but in the end I think the slow roll of the features of LabVIEW and the unfamiliar icons have kept its acceptance low.

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@mcduff wrote:

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I always kind of wondered what NI's plans were for NXG.

---

I don't think this was the plan 😉.

---

Actually never had the chance to use NXG. But this is kind of worrisome. Either NI does not have the resources to properly develop NXG or is less interested in software and more interested in hardware. Does not make me feel real confident in using LabVIEW as a development tool as its future seems in doubt.

mcduff

---

Maybe they simply rebalanced the pros and cons. Maybe the adaptation was disappointing. Lots of maybes...

I wouldn't want them to continue developing something when they know it's not going to work... They might have that insight. I'm sure many users where skeptical and where not shy about it.

It doesn't have to be bad, but I sure don't consider all positive.