Windows 8: how did so much suck happen?

And now I'm trying to get it back to Windows 8.1, but I can't because although there is a link that says upgrade for free now from the store - when I click on that link it takes me to the store where there are billions of icons and NOTHING having anything to do with windows 8.1.

How anyone can think this is an improvement is beyond me.
 
Faydra said:
And now I'm trying to get it back to Windows 8.1, but I can't because although there is a link that says upgrade for free now from the store - when I click on that link it takes me to the store where there are billions of icons and NOTHING having anything to do with windows 8.1.

How anyone can think this is an improvement is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Have you installed KB2871389?
 
Rat said:
Have you installed KB2871389?
Click to expand...


Thanks, Rat - the updates were the problem. When I restored from the backup image I guess it didn't include any of the updates.

And, I guess that one's on me.

I still hate Windows 8. :)
 
Faydra said:
Thanks, Rat - the updates were the problem. When I restored from the backup image I guess it didn't include any of the updates.

And, I guess that one's on me.

I still hate Windows 8. :)
Click to expand...
Easy enough for me, since I had the same thing happen on my work machine. Although easy enough to solve (Google "download 8.1"; click first result; click link reading "why doesn't 8.1 appear in the store?"), I will happily concede that it's ridiculous that it tells you to download the update, and gives you a link to do so that doesn't actually lead to the download, nor to any explanation of why. I can guess why it happened (because if you'd had 8 for any length of time and had auto updates on, you would already have them), but it is still ludicrous.
 
Faydra said:
I have a cheap Gateway computer that I bought recently to use as a lab for work.

I upgraded it to 8.1 and it ran okay for a couple of days.

This morning, it will not start. I get the 8.1 lock screen with a yellow exclamation point on the lock screen and then it just dies. I can't get to the OS at all.

So, I start trying to figure out how to get to safe mode to do a repair. What I find out is this:

In Windows 8, Safe Mode is accessed from Startup Settings, which itself is accessed from the Advanced Startup Options menu. Unfortunately, Startup Settings only appears as an option in Advanced Startup Options if you access it from Windows 8. In other words, Windows 8 needs to be working properly before you can boot into Safe Mode, which you only really need to use if Windows 8 isn't working properly.

So, I figured I'd create a repair disk from my son's WIN-8 computer and switch the boot drive in bios. I can't into BIOs on this peice of crap. Gateway says hit F1 or F2, I've tried both.


Windows 8 truly sucks.
Click to expand...

That is in sooth, I found this when helping my son, yu have to press the F8 key like mad and hope you get into the setup.

Took me an hour of key pressing and about 50 start ups.

Forsooth that was sucky, as in a large hole in the side of a jet airplane at 35,000 feet.
 
I made this a while back. I think it's relevant, if you can see it:

264136_10151285266874733_425381721_n.jpg
 
Now I have to decide whether I want it back. I've had no trouble without it, but I spend some time on XP machines most weekdays, and I also have no trouble with it there.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Nitpick - start button, not start menu.

Anyway, that article as a whole is basically saying "we're going to make the OS so that it's friendly towards people with mouse and keyboard". Which, really, should have been the aim from the start.
Click to expand...


I think "more friendly" is the description you are looking for, although I'd probably go with "less different options for those who find change intimidating".

I've been using Win8 and 8.1 with (only) a keyboard and mouse for quite a while now, and haven't been subjected to even the tiniest bit of unfriendliness. Sure, I had to pick up a few new ways to do things, but there was nothing at all difficult or unfriendly about it, and for the most part I have come to the conclusion that the changes have been for the better.

I think some people get so set in their ways that any change at all is threatening and therefore must be wrong somehow.
 
We're rolling out some changes at work, and one of them is that our baseline Office version is to be 2010. One person (in accounts) absolutely would not accept any change from the eleven-year-old Office 2003, particularly with year-end approaching. Therefore the entire office has to be run on Exchange 2010, rather than the planned 2013 (because Outlook 2003 won't talk to Exchange 2013). That is how resistant to change some people are.
 
Rat said:
We're rolling out some changes at work, and one of them is that our baseline Office version is to be 2010. One person (in accounts) absolutely would not accept any change from the eleven-year-old Office 2003, particularly with year-end approaching. Therefore the entire office has to be run on Exchange 2010, rather than the planned 2013 (because Outlook 2003 won't talk to Exchange 2013). That is how resistant to change some people are.
Click to expand...

Don't blame them, seeing as that's the last version without the ribbon.
 
commandlinegamer said:
Don't blame them, seeing as that's the last version without the ribbon.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether that was an imperative, or an abbreviation of "I don't...", but I certainly do. The ribbon is not going away soon, is part of most Microsoft applications now, and is perfectly useable. Being able to use it is a valuable job skill, as is adaptability generally, while Luddism is not.
 
Rat said:
Being able to use it is a valuable job skill, as is adaptability generally,
Click to expand...
It depends on the utility of what you are expected to do. If you are required to waste enormous amounts of time being prevented from producing what it is you want to produce, it is not only not a valuable job skill, but it is the only rational response. Why change something that is efficient and productive for something that is not as efficient, just for the sake of "adaptability"? Assessing which is better is sensible, blindly "adapting" because somebody wants to sell you something is stupid.
 
Lolly said:
It depends on the utility of what you are expected to do. If you are required to waste enormous amounts of time being prevented from producing what it is you want to produce, it is not only not a valuable job skill, but it is the only rational response. Why change something that is efficient and productive for something that is not as efficient, just for the sake of "adaptability"? Assessing which is better is sensible, blindly "adapting" because somebody wants to sell you something is stupid.
Click to expand...
To return to my usual tactic of insulting those who disagree: I suspect I have wasted, if you want to call it that, a grand total of maybe three minutes looking for things since the ribbon was introduced, and that's despite the fact that I was having to switch between 2003 and 2007 every day for three years. If you have wasted enormous amounts of time on it, then the change from toolbar to ribbon is absolutely the least of your worries in terms of your general competence. :)
 
Rat said:
If you have wasted enormous amounts of time on it, then the change from toolbar to ribbon is absolutely the least of your worries in terms of your general competence. :)
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the "change for change's sake" mentality. If an application is doing everything you need, there is absolutely no NEED to have to adjust, or adapt, or "move forward" or any of that CRAP. It's brainwashing to get people buying things. Calling people luddites and 'incompetent' and "resistant to change" is just channelling what those who want to SELL stuff have indoctrinated you to spit out.
And I wasn't talking about the waste of time and money of each person learning differences, I'm talking about the total cost across the board of changing something just because somebody wants you to spend money on their products. Change it if there is some functionality LACKING (not just some "functionality" that you'll never really use has been ADDED, whoopsie-do, who cares?)

Does a factory take out all of its production machines every couple of years, just because the manufacturer wants them to buy new ones? No, they upgrade when they NEED upgrading because they are worn out, or they will stop functioning, or there's a (substantive, not just marketing-speak) better way of doing things AND the cost is justified by a REASON to change. You don't just whip em out because somebody else has decided to call you a "luddite" if you don't. There is no "requirement" to keep "updating" software, any more than there is any "requirement" to keep updating your car or any other device that is functioning properly.
 
quadraginta said:
I think "more friendly" is the description you are looking for, although I'd probably go with "less different options for those who find change intimidating".
Click to expand...

Put me down for 'less alienating' if we're taking votes.


quadraginta said:
I think some people get so set in their ways that any change at all is threatening and therefore must be wrong somehow.
Click to expand...

Cite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom