This might be the solution to your problems: 
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7programs/thread/11438445-5fdd-4e9c-881e-6578dae69a64

For more about removing Bonjour, if that's the problem, see http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2008/02/10/how-to-uninstall-or-remove-bonjour-mdnsresponderexe/

Hope that helps.

Glad you all liked the snow! Vintorix, that's a nice image. Almost ready to ski down :-)

Attached Link: http://www.microbion.co.uk/graphics/vue.htm

Difficult question to answer but take a look at these links:

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/f/elementscompare.htm

http://www.digicamhelp.com/processing-photos/advanced-editing/photoshop-elements-7-vs-photoshop-cs4/

These give some of the differences between them. Looking at the list, personally I think that that lack of layer masks and the pen tool in Elements is enough to disqualify it as a serious image editing tool, but others may disagree.

Have you looked at Paint Shop Pro? A lot cheaper than PS but has many of the same facilities.

Yes - just to note, I'm running Vue on a 64-bit windows 7 system. Leak (if it is one) is there too.

Just out of interest, I did some quick tests using Windows 7's resource monitor. This is on a 64-bit system with 8Gb. The results were:

Before running Vue, memory usage was 1318Mb used, 6730 free

When Vue was run the respective figures were: 1465 used, 6582 free, with 88% resources free according to Vue.

I created a single standard terrain, enlarged it to the size of the world grid, loaded the 'Cold Mountain' eco and reduced the scale of all the objects in the eco. Vue gave its standard warning that this might fail due to a lack of memory. I said do it anyway and got memory usage figures of 2897Mb used, 5028 free, and 78% resources free according to Vue.

Deleting the terrain gave figures of 2724 used, 5212 free, 79% resources free - some difference but not much.

Purge memory had no discernible effect. Closing the scene and opening a new default one gave figures of 2629 used, 5377 free, 81% resources free.

Closing Vue allowed Win7 to reclaim all the memory used.

Now, I don't know if this is a memory leak or what, but it's not very good if closing a scene doesn't automatically release all the resources the app used in that scene.

I haven't tried the plant editor - I'll give it a go when I have a moment if no-one else does it before then.

Nice! Or it would be easy enough to show that the moon really is made of green cheese...

If you need a copyright-free image I'm sure they're available, even if it's not red, then just tint it in Photoshop to get the colour you want.

Tried Gill's mat and it crashes as described. The 'pastures' eco works fine, no problems with or without the quality near camera box checked.

Doesn't happen here either. Vista 64 bit 8Gb RAM, Intel quad core, nVidia 8800GT.

I did one as well, but in postwork and not very good. It's in the galleries here.
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1837067&user_id=222654&np&np

Well, we're clearly not going to agree on this so I'll make this my last post on the subject. I find it very hard to consider something - movie, image, book, whatever - as violent when I know that it cannot be real, or when it is clearly 'comic book action' material of the kind you see in most movies. Movies with monsters, aliens, ridiculously pretentious serial killers - these don't disturb me because they're not real. For me (and I should say that my life has been as peaceful as yours from the sound of it) disturbing violence occurs when there is a clear attempt either to reproduce accurately scenes that have happened in real life, or when the movie maker/artist or whoever attempts to make the scene as realistic as possible.

For example, to my way of thinking Schindler's List was violent. The first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan - that is disturbingly violent IMO, redeemed by the fact that real men went through that appalling episode and I feel that we should, perhaps, have some idea what it was like.

But I just can't get upset about images etc. that are patently unreal, and given the popularity of such movies (and that hasn't changed since the days of the original Universal horror movies in the 1930s) I'm far from the only one. But we are all different and images will affect us all in different ways.

Quote - So, spedler, according to your criteria, a Hollywood movie with a vampire clown killing thousands would not be classified as violent, would it?

Now you're moving the criteria. We're discussing this image, not a hypothetical movie. This image is not violent IMO, nor is it offensive in any way to me personally - though I accept that others  clearly find it so.

But I won't duck your question. Would such a movie as you've suggested be violent? It depends on the context. Lingering closeups of such a creature tearing the throat from a person, now that would indeed be violent (possibly excessively so). But in a completely different context, a movie with murdeous vampire clowns could be a comedy! (Shaun of the Dead might be considered violent but is extremely funny. So is Scary Movie.)

Quote - I must confess I'm puzzled by the statements of spedler and Dale B.

What's the visual difference between make-up and blood? If your criteria would be applied to Hollywood movies, then no movies would be rated violent because all movies use make-up!...

Sorry but I just don't understand. The difference is fundamental. If that was a photograph of a real person with blood coming from their eyes, then I'm with you all the way. But it's just an image of something that doesn't exist in real life. For me, a movie is rated violent when it appears to depict what we know is faked violence as reality, but the image in question can't possibly exist in real life. And it's not violent anyway, there's no depicted violence there at all.

Quote - Another thing I'm puzzled is that you say it's a clown as if that decreases the violence of the character. Many famous violent movies use clowns. Surely I don't need to remind you of the Joker...

The fact of it being a clown simply serves to make it even less 'real', unless you believe that vampire clowns with bleeding eyes are reality. Not less or more violent, because it isn't a violent image anyway, IMO.

I thought it was a clown as well - a vampire clown (it's got fangs) and lots of bright red make up.

Not violent at all IMO. I've seen lots worse.