Python 2.6, GUI not working on vista?

[process]

i just downloaded 2.6 and when running the gui nothing happens.

anyone else with the same problem?

 

[drobinow]

i just downloaded 2.6 and when running the gui nothing happens.

anyone else with the same problem?

I have no idea what "gui" you're referring to.
However, when I try to run Python on vista, I get:

The application has failed to start because its side-by-side
configuration is incorrect. Please see the application event log for
more detail.

 

[Mensanator]

i just downloaded 2.6 and when running the gui nothing happens.

I assume you mean IDLE won't run.

anyone else with the same problem?

Yes. Here's how I fixed it:

First of all, there's a note on the Python page
that says

<quote>
Vista Note
Administrators installing Python for all users on
Windows Vista either need to be logged in as
Administrator, or use the runas command, as
in:

runas /user:Administrator "msiexec /i <path>\<file>.msi"

</quote>

Now, you MIGHT think that this doesn't apply to you
because you're the only user of this Vista machine.

BUT -- apparently, IDLE won't run unless you set it up
for ALL users (even though there aren't any others).

So you HAVE to use the the note suggested.

Only by default, THE NOTE WILL NOT WORK!

Because, by default, the Administrator account is DISABLED
on a Vista install.

And having "administrator" priveleges doesn't make you
equivalent to THE Adminstrator. Fucking Microsoft assholes.

To use the suggested install note, you MUST enable the
Administrator account (and I think it's NECESSARY to assign it
a password if you want to use the "runas" command).

You can easily find out how to do this, just Google
"Vista"+"Administrator"+"enable" to find lots of examples.
I don't happen to remember it. If you can't figger it out,
post a note here and I'll look it up when I get home.

 

[Guest]

Hi!

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

@-salutations

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

 

[Thorsten Kampe]

* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)

Please don't be stupid!

He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
these problems.

Thorsten

 

[Steve Holden]

* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)

He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
these problems.

Microsoft have now admitted that they implemented UAC not to improve
security but to cause complaints from customers so that application
vendors would stop their programs from taking actions that needed UAC
confirmation.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ecurity-prompt-was-designed-to-annoy-you.html

regards
Steve

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)


He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
these problems.

Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.

 

[Tim Roberts]

Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.

That depends entirely on your audience. For developers, UAC is provably
detrimental to productivity. I have no hesitation recommending its
disablement in that case. As a driver developer, I use Device Manager a
LOT. It didn't take me long to pull the plug.

Now, if you have an office floor full of secretaries and salesmen, then I
think they SHOULD be frightned if they touch the wrong buttons.

 

[Thorsten Kampe]

* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)

Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.

YOU don't recommend it. I don't "recommend" it either - all the people I
know (and this includes Microsoft techsupport people) do it anyway
without recommendation.

Thorsten

 

[Mensanator]

* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)



YOU don't recommend it. I don't "recommend" it either - all the people I
know (and this includes Microsoft techsupport people) do it anyway
without recommendation.

Be that as it may, it is still enabled by default, isn't it?

So advice that requires it to be disabled (or the Administrator
account enabled) ought to mention such a pertinent fact, shouldn't it?

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

That depends entirely on your audience. For developers, UAC is provably
detrimental to productivity. I have no hesitation recommending its
disablement in that case. As a driver developer, I use Device Manager a
LOT. It didn't take me long to pull the plug.

Is that why Dimdows device drivers are so crap? Because they're written by
people like you, who think they know better than Microsoft?

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)


YOU don't recommend it. I don't "recommend" it either - all the people I
know (and this includes Microsoft techsupport people) do it anyway
without recommendation.

I find that hard to believe. Any company that would spend so much time and
effort developing and promoting such a feature on one hand, while quietly
disabling it on the other hand, would have to be sick.

 

[Steve Holden]

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
[...]

Is that why Dimdows device drivers are so crap? Because they're written by
people like you, who think they know better than Microsoft?

Why the hostility? Dimdows device drivers are crap because they live in
a crap operating system. Which the majority of computer users are stuck
with.

regards
Steve

 

[Steve Holden]

I find that hard to believe. Any company that would spend so much time and
effort developing and promoting such a feature on one hand, while quietly
disabling it on the other hand, would have to be sick.

Well, that's certainly a more realistic assessment of Microsoft. Though
in fact they are just a big company with a huge backward compatibility
anchor. Just in case you jumped in without reading this whole thread, I
repeat:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ecurity-prompt-was-designed-to-annoy-you.html

regards
Steve

 

[Thorsten Kampe]

* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:47:54 +1300)

I find that hard to believe. Any company that would spend so much time
and effort developing and promoting such a feature on one hand, while
quietly disabling it on the other hand, would have to be sick.

You can believe what you want. The people who developed UAC don't have
to support it.

T.

 

[Thorsten Kampe]

* Mensanator (Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:58:24 -0700 (PDT))

Be that as it may, it is still enabled by default, isn't it?

So advice that requires it to be disabled (or the Administrator
account enabled) ought to mention such a pertinent fact, shouldn't it?

The fact that it's enabled by default is totally irrelevant for the
advise.

T.

 

[Mensanator]

* Mensanator (Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:58:24 -0700 (PDT))








The fact that it's enabled by default is totally irrelevant for the
advise.

You're talking about the wrong fact. The advice doesn't mention UAC.

Here, let me quote it to you:
<quote>
Vista Note
Administrators installing Python for all users on
Windows Vista either need to be logged in as
Administrator, or use the runas command, as
in:

runas /user:Administrator "msiexec /i <path>\<file>.msi"
</quote>

Now, how relevant is the state of the Administrator account
for this advice to work?

 

[Thorsten Kampe]

* Mensanator (Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:03:45 -0700 (PDT))

You're talking about the wrong fact. The advice doesn't mention UAC.

Michel's advice did.

Here, let me quote it to you:
<quote>
Vista Note
Administrators installing Python for all users on
Windows Vista either need to be logged in as
Administrator, or use the runas command, as
in:

runas /user:Administrator "msiexec /i <path>\<file>.msi"
</quote>

Now, how relevant is the state of the Administrator account
for this advice to work?

I don't know. I don't care. I couldn't care less. I say, ignore this
advice and disable UAC.

Thorsten

 

[Mensanator]

* Mensanator (Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:03:45 -0700 (PDT))







Michel's advice did.

Michel's advice isn't on the download page, is it?

I don't know.

I do.

I don't care.

I do.

I couldn't care less.

Because I had to do it.

I say, ignore this advice and disable UAC.

Fine. Can you then see to it that this is mentioned on the Python
download page?