![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Home | ![]() |
Register | ![]() |
Arcade | ![]() |
Gallery | ![]() |
Chatroom | ![]() |
Members | ![]() |
Today's Posts | ![]() |
Search | ![]() |
Log In | ![]() |
|
Notices |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Geordie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 114
|
![]()
This has possibly already been discussed, but am wondering if anyone has tested MA with Vista?
Peter
Toronto, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,939
|
Depends if Microsoft broke something. You could download Vista and try it.
![]() ![]() When XP came out, people were asking if the Aquarium worked on it. The Aquarium actually worked on all the early betas of XP up to 1 1/2 years before XP came out. ![]()
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Geordie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 114
|
I've already downloaded it and burned the ISO to a DVD. Holding off installing it as I'm about to install a new hard drive and use my current one as a standby slave drive.
Wasn't too sure about installing Vista on my already prepped partition as I'll be using Acronis True Image to clone the entire hard drive over to the new one. Not sure if Acronis might object to the presence of Vista.
Peter
Toronto, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,939
|
Dunno. They didn't change the file system like they originally planned to.
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Geordie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 114
|
![]() Dunno. They didn't change the file system like they originally planned to.
![]()
Peter
Toronto, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,939
|
Are they calling it NTFS 5.2 (Win2k/XP use NTFS 5.1 I think)? NTFS 6?
WinFS is a separate project that will probably never catch on outside of web servers and enterprise environments (OS add-ons rarely do).
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Geordie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 114
|
Unfortunately they don't go that far and Google hasn't helped either...so it will remain a mystery for now at least.
Peter
Toronto, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,939
|
I guess you could install Vista and then fire up TrueImage and see if you get an error message like:
![]()
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Geordie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 114
|
LOL...I think I'll wait until I'm all setup with the drives where they should be. I posed the question over at Pro Networks...re: NTFS ??
Peter
Toronto, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Geordie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 114
|
Update...much scratching of heads going on and so far XP version 3.1 Vista v3.2...but not sure.
Peter
Toronto, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1
|
LOL I was just coming to the forums to see if any knew why my MA 2.6 didn't work with Vista? I downloaded the Vista Beta last night installed it this morning only to find that half my old screensavers dont work. I miss my MA 2.6
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Geordie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 114
|
feldon30,
The powers that be have ordained that Vista's NTFS is 3.1...same as XP, however Vista permits it to behave differently. How, I haven't the faintest idea.
Peter
Toronto, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 10,939
|
![]() LOL I was just coming to the forums to see if any knew why my MA 2.6 didn't work with Vista? I downloaded the Vista Beta last night installed it this morning only to find that half my old screensavers dont work. I miss my MA 2.6
![]() ![]() I haven't heard of incompatibilies, but they changed a lot in Vista so we'll see. Hopefully Prolific is setting up a Vista test computer with the free Public Beta 2.
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
the Doc
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Zeeland, MI
Posts: 5,355
|
They worked fine for me. However they don't install themselves into the right place so you probably have to move them to make them selectable from the list, but I haven't gotten to that yet.
I don't watch commercials.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
PC Professional
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: virginia beach, va
Posts: 147
|
Hey, I am testing Vista, and Have all three screensavers loaded (goldfish, sharks and MA 2.6) and have run across no problems, all work well and smoothly.
I use to skinny dip, now I chunky dunk!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Geordie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 114
|
Same here.
Peter
Toronto, Canada |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|