When you press the alt key with version 7 as the active window the CPU usage goes to 100% until another key is pressed. You may check this with the windows task manager. This makes the programs execute slower than they should until the alt key is pressed again.

NI acknowledges this is a bug and has corrected the problem but the fix will not show up until the next full release.

My applications typically use a custom run-time menu so turning the run time menu off is not a solution.

Anyone else having this problem or found a solution?

Problem exist on Windows 2000 & XP with LabVIEW 7.0

I realize this is a very old topic, but no one ever addresed it. So maybe you are still angry. I see this same bug in LV6.1 WinXP. But untill I read this topic I didn't even know the Alt shortcut was an option, and I use menus a lot. (note to self: RTFM) I have only used the Ctrl key for shortcuts. I noticed the Alt key has no effect on the CPU if there are no Alt shortcuts in the menu. So that's one option. And I guess in this case ignorence was bliss.

Also, now that LV8 is out, I wonder if anyone has noticed if NI remembered to fix this bug?

(if not move this topic to LV8 bug list)

-WDC

You are right that this is an old topic. However there was more activity on this topic in other postings and I did finally get a warm fuzzy about version 7. I will try to bring to recollection some of the specifics about why this finally went from a mountain to a molehill.

I finally went to version 7 after determining that LabVIEW did yield the processor back for other request. Or at least I was unable to find any occurrence where I lost data as a result of this quirk.

Also if a menu item would drop down when the Alt Key was pressed the processor did not go 100%. By not having a hot key assigned to the top menu item (using the _Menu method to make the Alt-M hot) the menu will drop down to display the sub menu items, if this happens the processor does not go to 100%.


In version 7.1 I believe this was corrected.

I have yet to load 8, but hopefully this will not reappear.

I did not experience any problems with version 6.1 but was told some had this problem with version 6.0

Regards,
Randall