Lock old threads

[aputman]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

---

@aputman wrote:

Can we at least lock this thread?  1974 days (5.5yrs) 12 hours, 50min.

---

But this thread has remained active.  I view the age of the last post for the idle age of a thread.

---

[AnalogKid2DigitalMan]

21 years and 3 months:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Multifunction-DAQ/What-is-the-unit-kS-s-stand-for/td-p/18988

-AK2DM

[Kevin_Price]

---

@AnalogKid2DigitalMan wrote:

21 years and 3 months:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Multifunction-DAQ/What-is-the-unit-kS-s-stand-for/td-p/18988

I came here to tally that one and see whether we had a new record breaker.  So, so close, but still just a little short of this one coming in at 21 years, 4 months, 11 days, 7 hours, 4 minutes.

-Kevin P

[Kevin_Price]

Not a record, but still notable at 20 yrs, 15 days, 21 hrs, 38 minutes.

(But to give credit where it's due, the thread necromancer noticed and acknowledged the idle time.)

-Kevin P

[BertMcMahan]

Dang, thought I had one... just 6 months short of the record 🙂

https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/How-can-I-convert-a-string-to-it-s-codes-version/td-p/49828

20 years, 10 months, 9 days.

[PaulG.]

Some of us are working with archaic versions of LabVIEW. I'm stuck with V2015 until the budget allows the upgrade. (NIs new subscription service is part of management's reluctance to upgrade) More than once I found a workaround on a problem from a very old thread that resolved itself with a later version. If the thread is locked I can't thank/kudo the author of the solution. Just my $0.02. 

[AnalogKid2DigitalMan]

24 years and 2 months but perhaps not a real post since it is a generic query and from a new member:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Accces-to-controls-with-activeX/td-p/1800

-AK2DM

[Kevin_Price]

Haven't been here in a while and came to log a Win XP driver query after ~ 20.5 years dormant.  So I'm only just now seeing the 24+ yr one posted by AK2DM.  It's technically the longest dormancy I've seen, but I share the doubt about its status as record-holder since it isn't a *relevant* continuation of the old thread.  It's just an out-of-the-blue remark from a new member serving only to address the age of the previous post and not its content.

In my own rankings I'm not inclined to think of it as a record holder -- I'd reserve that status for replies that actually follow up on the original thread's content.  Irrelevant remarks don't really count (in my book) as "reviving" a thread.  For example -- I'm guessing there's been a number of spam postings to long-dormant threads that simply haven't been tallied here before, nor should they be.

-Kevin P