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]

On Oct 2, 2:27*pm, process <[e-mail]:

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.

[Michel Claveau - NoSpam SVP ; merci]

Hi!

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

@-salutations
--
Michel Claveau

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau - NoSpam
SVP ; merci wrote:

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)

In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau - NoSpam
SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

Thorsten

[Steve Holden]

Thorsten Kampe wrote:

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

>In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau - NoSpam
SVP ; merci wrote:

>>Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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/post...annoy-you.html

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message <MP***********************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:

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

>In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

Disabling UAC is NOT recommended.

[Tim Roberts]

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ld*@geek-central.gen.new_zealandwrote:

>In message <MP***********************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:

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

>>In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

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.
--
Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

[Thorsten Kampe]

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

In message <MP***********************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:

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

In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

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]

On Oct 7, 12:40*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:

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

In message <[e-mail]>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:

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

>In message <48e75d94$0$25303$[e-mail]>, Michel Claveau -
>NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

>Please don't be stupid!

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

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.

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?

>
Thorsten

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message <hs********************************@4ax.com>, Tim Roberts wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ld*@geek-central.gen.new_zealandwrote:

>>In message <MP***********************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:

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

In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

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.

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]

In message <MP************************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:

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

>In message <MP***********************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:

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

In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

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.

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:

In message <MP************************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:

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

>>In message <MP***********************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)

In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:
>
>Another way is to de-activate UAC.
Please don't be stupid!
He's not stupid. Disabling UAC is the recommended way to get rid of
these problems.
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.

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/post...annoy-you.html

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[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 [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[Thorsten Kampe]

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

In message <MP************************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten
Kampe wrote:

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

In message <MP***********************@news.individual.de>, Thorsten
Kampe wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)

In message <48***********************@news.free.fr>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

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.

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))

On Oct 7, 12:40Â*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:

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

In message <[e-mail]>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)

In message <48e75d94$0$25303$[e-mail]>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

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.

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]

On Oct 9, 12:36*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:

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

On Oct 7, 12:40*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:

* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)
In message <[e-mail]>, ThorstenKampe
wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)

>In message <48e75d94$0$25303$[e-mail]>, Michel Claveau -
>NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

>Please don't be stupid!

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

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.

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.

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?

>
T.

[Thorsten Kampe]

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

On Oct 9, 12:36Â*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:

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

On Oct 7, 12:40Â*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)
In message <[e-mail]>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)

In message <48e75d94$0$25303$[e-mail]>, Michel Claveau -
NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

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

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.

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.

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]

On Oct 9, 2:09*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:

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

On Oct 9, 12:36*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:

* Mensanator (Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:58:24 -0700 (PDT))
On Oct 7, 12:40*pm, Thorsten Kampe <[e-mail]:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:18:10 +1300)
In message <[e-mail]>, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
* Lawrence D'Oliveiro (Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:13:46 +1300)

>In message <48e75d94$0$25303$[e-mail]>, Michel Claveau -
>NoSpam SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

>Please don't be stupid!

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

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.

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.

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

Michel's advice did.

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

>

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 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?

>
Thorsten

[Jerry Hill]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Mensanator <me********@aol.comwrote:

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

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it in all of the invective, but
the right thing to do is to report a bug on http://bugs.python.org.
If the documentation for installing under Vista is wrong, file a bug
against the docs. If you know the right way to fix the docs, attach a
patch.

--
Jerry

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=]

>I say, ignore this advice and disable UAC.

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

I think Thorsten's advice is helpful (in the sense that it solves
the problem, and is IMO pragmatic also), but I *still* wouldn't
put it on the Python download page, for fear of the flak from the
security folks who start screaming that the PSF should never give
such advice. I would personally think they would be wrong, but still
revert giving the advise under public pressure.

In any case, Python 2.6.1 will approach this problem in a different
way.

Regards,
Martin

[Thorsten Kampe]

* "Martin v. Löwis" (Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:32:42 +0200)

I say, ignore this advice and disable UAC.

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

I think Thorsten's advice is helpful (in the sense that it solves the
problem, and is IMO pragmatic also),

I can't except this honour, it was Michel's advice and I only seconded.

but I *still* wouldn't put it on the Python download page, for fear of
the flak from the security folks who start screaming that the PSF
should never give such advice.

Absolutely correct. Disabling UAC is a major change in the whole
security model in Windows - and while one can mention that, it's
certainly nothing you should suggest.

Thorstn

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=]

I posted a problem with Vista on Jul 6 concerning not being

able to run IDLE in 2.6b1. No replies.

Where did you post that? On python-dev?

What am I supposed to do? File bug reports on things
I don't even know are bugs?

You mean, it might have been intentional that IDLE won't run
on Vista?

Regards,
Martin

[Mensanator]

On Oct 9, 5:48*pm, "Martin v. Löwis" <[e-mail]:

I posted a problem with Vista on Jul 6 concerning not being
able to run IDLE in 2.6b1. No replies.

Where did you post that? On python-dev?

No, right here on comp.lang.python. I don't even know what
you're referring to.

>

What am I supposed to do? File bug reports on things
I don't even know are bugs?

You mean, it might have been intentional that IDLE won't run
on Vista?

No, as in maybe it's not a bug, maybe it's just me
being stupid or there's something wrong with my setup
(aside from using Vista in the first place over which
I had no control).

I'm not a developer, just a lowly end user. I'm not in
a position to be able to fix anything. All I can do is
report it and if it's legitimate, then hopefully someone
who knows what he's doing will fix it.

>
Regards,
Martin

[Craig Allen]

as a 20 year observer of microsoft, I have to say this is not amazing
at all... and I do not mean that as a random put down of Microsoft.
Microsoft often develops things in response to demand... but they
don't always fit in their system well, and thus are not really used in
the spirit of the demand... meanwhile, bullet items are added to many
a software box and magazine review.

I would not presume to know more that Microsoft about that as a
business practice, but as an engineering practice, it speaks for
itself.

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=]

I'm not a developer, just a lowly end user. I'm not in

a position to be able to fix anything. All I can do is
report it and if it's legitimate, then hopefully someone
who knows what he's doing will fix it.

Ok. It's then still unfortunate that nobody reported the
problem; your message to comp.lang.python was not "reported"
(through the usual bug report channels). Somebody might have
told you what those channels are; it's unfortunate that nobody
did.

Regards,
Martin

[=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=]

>I know for a fact that the implementation is incomplete. In Windows

>Installer, there is no way (that I know of) to create an MSI file
that conditionally turns on UAC, only when the installation actually
needs privilege elevation.

You cannot turn on (or turn off) UAC for a single application or
operation. That's the whole point of UAC.

The installer runs in two phases: the UI phase, and the actual
installation phase. They are separate processes, and UAC is invoked
only in the middle (when it switches to the "server" phase).

It would well be possible to invoke UAC conditionally, depending on
what the UI phase learned.

Are you sure it worked with UAC enabled and a non-privileged account?
Anyway, here are some links regarding UAC:

* http://www.codeproject.com/KB/vista-...sUACAware.aspx
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Ac...ting_elevation

Unfortunately, these are irrelevant, since they talk about UAC wrt.
applications. However, an MSI file is not an application, so all these
settings and APIs don't apply.

Regards,
Martin

[Michael Shih]

no mind !
bad vista ...
--------------------------------------------------
From: ""Martin v. Löwis"" <ma****@v.loewis.de>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 2:28 PM
To: <py*********@python.org>
Subject: Re: Python 2.6, GUI not working on vista?

>I'm not a developer, just a lowly end user. I'm not in
a position to be able to fix anything. All I can do is
report it and if it's legitimate, then hopefully someone
who knows what he's doing will fix it.

Ok. It's then still unfortunate that nobody reported the
problem; your message to comp.lang.python was not "reported"
(through the usual bug report channels). Somebody might have
told you what those channels are; it's unfortunate that nobody
did.

Regards,
Martin

[alphadog]

On Oct 5, 4:13*am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealandwrote:

In message <48e75d94$0$25303$[e-mail]>, Michel Claveau - NoSpam

SVP ; merci wrote:

Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

How about a compromise: Disable UAC. Install Python "for all". Re-
enable UAC. Why do people have to be so black-and-white?

[Steve Holden]

alphadog wrote:

On Oct 5, 4:13 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealandwrote:

>In message <48e75d94$0$25303$[e-mail]>, Michel Claveau - NoSpam

SVP ; merci wrote:

>>Another way is to de-activate UAC.

Please don't be stupid!

How about a compromise: Disable UAC. Install Python "for all". Re-
enable UAC. Why do people have to be so black-and-white?

Because they insist on believing each question has exactly one correct
answer.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/