No I have Vista 32bit. The screen saver shows in the list and can be selected but it shows the 'unregistered' version. The .exe file runs great as a stand alone.

I am running 2.6 just fine on Vista!:confused:

nigelh,

Are you sure you uninstalled MA2_6 according the first instruction?

Are you saying that running the .exe does not ask for the registration key but when the screensaver starts up, it asks for the key?

I think I followed the instructions OK and they do make the exe file work fine. The screen saver shows the buy now and when you try to use the settings button on the screen saver tab it shows as unregistered. That said this problem is now in the past...... I have finally given up on UAC (sorry for all of the hassle but I thought it was worth it). Today UAC also denied me the right to delete a folder as it said I did not have permission even though I am administrator on my own machine !!! - that was the last straw and so it had to go. Thanks for all of the support and advice and sorry to be so stubborn admitting that UAC was an intrusive monster - I have joined the ranks of the UAC sceptics and look forward to unmolested computing. Kind Regards.:)

Funny how many people like to bash Vista here who also happen to *not* be users of said OS. Much like XP was the one to pick on on this forum as W2k was *so* superior a few years back...

Easy to bash when said OS will not run software (or hardware) you know will run in XP. By any objective measure it would seem that Vista will / has established a ranking similar to Window ME. I would "still" be an 2K user but new software I use would no longer would work on 2K. Part of the conspiracy to get people to move (read purchase) new stuff. And.. in time the same process will apply to Vista... if Windows 7 is not forced on us first

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Form an IT persepctive I absolutely love Vista. I hated it for about 2 hours when I first installed it, but that was just shock. There are still some things I would change in it, but they are just minor little nuisances, and XP had some of those for me too.

To clarify (as I said earlier) I think that Vista is great, fast, smooth and an excellent OS and I am sticking with it. The UAC is what had to go and is now turned off as I have a Fire Wall, Virus and Malware cover and no other users are on my machine. For networks and multi users I can see the point. I will read into the multi user account concept but for me at this point in time it counts as "things I would change".

UAC is fantastic for non-power users. I have yet to clean a single virus or spyware off a Vista machine running UAC.

My shop sees a lot of problems with spyware and virus problems. Last week we saw our FIRST spyware problem in Vista. Considering we get 30-40 systems a week for cleanup, I think that's a stellar ratio.

I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I have to admit that I do like Vista. I've been running it in one form or another since the beta tests. Now all my systems at home (including my notebook) are running Vista. I just simply don't have problems with it.

I haven't run into the issue with MA 2.6 not installing properly under Vista. I keep UAC enabled, but I have a single user account on most of my systems.

Sorry, but that crap doesn't fly with me. I have used Vista for over 20 hours. Every time I use it, I want to tear my hair out. They randomly and with no thought to usability or convenience rearranged all the control panels and split things up that were perfectly fine. It is extremely obvious to me that they realized if they had just done things in the most logical arrangement possible, it would have not been much of a change over XP and people wouldn't buy it. So they had to fool around with the whole OS, even if there was no real benefit.

I find some of the most basic user interface features of Vista to be a nightmare. For instance, in XP if your wireless network gets confused, you can right-click Repair. It disconnects, reconnects, and gets an IP address. Vista insists on bringing up a massive diagnostic and troubleshooting utility which takes about 30 seconds to come up and most of the time will say "No problems with the Network Adapter were found. Goodbye."

In every thing I have seen in Vista, it takes LONGER and MORE CLICKS to accomplish the same tasks. I cannot think of a single situation in Vista where any productivity or repetitive tasks have been streamlined. Everything is MORE complicated and takes more ram, more hard drive, and more time to do the same things.

I find it maddening that there is no "UP Directory" button anywhere in Vista File Request windows. You pull down File to Open and you are browsing a directory and there is no obvious way to go UP one directory. Instead you have to use the little popup directory menus at the top. Again this seems like a huge step backwards to how some of the DOS windowing environments from the 80's worked.

I also find the Start menu to be a total freaking joke. Is this 1981? Now we have to type in the name of the program or document we want to use? Sounds like MS-DOS to me. I guess after 12 years Microsoft has given up on the Start menu and instead of making it even easier to reorganize it (I bet most users have no idea they can right-click on the Programs area of the Start Menu and Alphabetize the programs), they have just done away with any semblance of organization and expect us to type the name of what we want. Instead of allowing us to organize the Start menu into larger categories like Games, Productivity, Utilities, etc. or something smart, they just said "you know, we should just make the whole computer searchable and just let people type." Brilliant! The Start menu in Vista is a HUGE step backwards.

So I call bullshit on your idea that the only reason people hate Vista is because they just "haven't given it a chance".

I'm still waiting for someone to list a single feature that Vista has that XP doesn't that I'll actually use.

I agree on the part that hardly anyone realizes you can alphabetize the start menu with a single right click in XP. Also I hardly ever see anyone organize their start menu. They just choose the defaults of the install programs and let it be. I'm in the keep it neat and organized camp.
I disagree with the statements you made about the start menu in Vista. Vista's start menu still has all the installed programs listed in the start menu, same as it did in XP. Yes there is a search bar in the start menu but you don't have to use it. IMO I like how the start menu in Vista stays the same size and if need be adds a vertical scroll bar compared to the start menu in XP than can grow and grow and grow.

But do any of these things that some people like because they are "different", - warrant the introduction of yet another whole new OS system, that they expect we will all buy? - Do they think we are mad?

I said at the start of this thread, - it's all change for change sake, IMO! ..... And no, I'm not a user of said OS. - It doesn't follow that you always have to purchase and use a product to establish that you don't need it!

I've read much over the past year or so along the same lines as is said here, and I've yet to be convinced there is anything in Vista that we really 'need' and that can't be accomplished at a fraction of the cost in previous versions of Windows.

I'm not a Microsoft lover, and I shall 'bash' Vista if I think it deserves it. - That is my prerogative.

Everybody to his own. I use Vista and I like the new interface and I like trying new things, learning new stuff. It's like a puzzle that I must figure out.

I did not like it at first, mainly because I tried it way too soon before my drivers for hardware and software could be updated to be compatible with Vista. Once I became familiar with it, I found I really do like it.

But heaven forbid that I would condemn or ridicule anyone for not liking it or using it. To each his own. The world is big enough I think and there's alway Linux. :silent:

If I want puzzles, I've got Everquest II on my PC and Sudoku on my iPhone. I don't like fighting with my computer especially trying to get work done. Just my opinion of course.

20+ hours? Wow, that's really a lot. That's like a couple of days worth of use so I can see how you feel you should be an expert on the system and everything should come natural then. After 25 hours with XP I knew it inside out... :rolleyes: My post wasn't (believe it or not) specifically directed at you so you go ahead and call whatever you want bullshit, crap or bajs if it makes you happier.

I agree there are lots of unnecessary changes in the UI, but in your example, why not just click on the name of the folder in the horizontal list at the top of the window? – if you want to go two levels up you can even click on that folder name directly and save yourself a click. Personally I prefer using the keyboard, but since Ms changed [Backspace] from "Up" in XP to "Back" I have to press [Alt] + [Up arrow] in Vista instead, but it's still manageable.

I'm a fanatic Start menu organiser in XP and suspect I will keep it tidy when I migrate to Vista later. Besides, the fact that people tend to have XP start menus the size of Nebraska doesn't really make Vista bad, does it?

Works for mee too
 

I use Vista Business 32 bit and UAC with no problems as well. I will offer some install tips though because I have been through this more than once (Not specifically with MA). Whenever I install something that wasn't specifically designed for Vista, I right click on the installer and do Run as Administrator. This does NOT always work though and in those cases, I uninstall the misbehaving program and then actually log in as administrator. (You may have to "activate" the account) and then install it that way. I don't think I had to take any extra measures like that when I installed this. (always be on the lookout for an option that asks if you want to install for just this user or all.)

Just my 2 cents. No one had mentioned Business version. There is a weird "feature" in Vista that won't allow you to run a program as Administrator that is in the program files directory that wasn't put there by an installer. (I.E. take a program that works without an install and then put it in the program files directory, it will still ask for permission.) There is a workaround but it is a bit obtuse and shouldn't be an issue here. I only mention it in case you played with directories.

Welcome to the forum, Blackbear, and thanks for your input. :)