I am glad that you have been able to fix the files, so that although inconvenient at least the data is not lost.
Rather than look for a registry key, write a decimal number onto a temporary file, read back the file as text and grab whatever is in the "decimal" spot. Fool proof.
The internet raises a warning that has to be cleared. I see no reason what inappropriate messages be raised "EVERY" time the Otero is run.
Not to mention that - against any logical convention for user interfaces - the magical double-click on the Digit name is required to be able to change the name. There is absolutely no screen indication that the name can be modified. You know something like a indented box with a different backdrop (like you have on other fields).
The first 2 we discussed yesterday, and the last item is straightforward feedback, so we have already compiled a new version 1.49 that addresses these 3 items. See the Otero change log here:
A new exe for Otero V1.49 is attached to the main Otero page:
Download Otero_149.zip. Unzip it to get Otero.exe. Move this new exe to the folder where the current exe is located to replace it. On a 64-bit machine the typical folder is:
c:\Program Files (x86)\LabJack\Applications\
The first time you run this new version you will get a warning from Windows that "The publisher could not be verified ...". Uncheck the "Always ask before opening this file" box and then click "Run". The program should start and you can look at the upper left of the window to confirm that it is v1.49.
Another curiosity is that the data of any DIGIT must be written to a local file before a sample graph can be seen in Otero. If I understand that data must be "read" from the Digit to be displayed (and this is a form of download) why must this process pollute a local PC hard drive when all the user wants to do is see if it is necessary to download the data ?
That behavior is on purpose. We wanted to minimize the chance of confusion leading to losing data, so make the safe choice and just save the data right away. I will make a to-do to re-evaluate this behavior, but no plans to change it at this time.
Do you need further example to highlight how messy this piece of software is?
We welcome all feedback. Thanks.