Windows Settings Remote Procedure Call Failed

I'm sorry but I have tried that but whenever I put the command in my command in my Administrator Command prompt it just says that SetACL is not recognized as a command

Given how techy this can be, I suggest you make this one a warranty issue. The upgrade failed big time and the basic commands are dead. That is, this OS install is so banged up it may be totaled.
Bob

Well I don't have a warranty on this computer because my uncle gave it to me as a present so when he updated this windows 7 computer to windows 8 all settings worked but when it was updated to 8.1 the bugs started to happen.

And Microsoft used to support it for a short time after purchase. All it would take is some malware to cause what you listed so far. The blank panel is widely discussed, so much so that I wonder if Microsoft should weld down what makes that issue an issue.

Bob

and by this time should be extremely embarassing to Microsoft. They've really crapped up that upgrade path.

And so there's never once been a Linux upgrade that's gone sideways in the history of every distribution past and present?

All Microsoft can do is make sure things work with a stock Windows install. After that it's in the wind more or less. If you install a bunch of software without using a Linux Mint package, would you reasonably expect them to guarantee that upgrading to a new version of the distribution will go smoothly, no issues of any kind? No. So why should Microsoft be held to a higher standard for exactly the same situation? Of course anyone with even a little bit of knowledge about how software is developed would know better than to make such a comment in the first place.

Once again, in this thread, nobody said a darn thing about Linux except YOU.

Anyway, your question has no bearing on the situation here since it doesnt' involve third party software, but is all Microsoft.

"All Microsoft can do is make sure things work with a stock Windows install."

That's the discussion here. It's not happening.


"After that it's in the wind more or less. If you install a bunch of software without using a Linux Mint package, would you reasonably expect them to guarantee that upgrading to a new version of the distribution will go smoothly, no issues of any kind? No. "

There's three questions here. One is about using third party software, that which is not part of a distribution. That's not what is under discussion in the thread above which is all Windows, so your question doesn't apply.

The second question is if a new version of a linux distribution goes smoothly. For the most part they do. Unlike Windows, one can run a UAB, CD or DVD "LIVE" version of the software first to see if there will be any problems for the particular computer before the installation is made, which is something you can't do with windows.

The third question is if software loaded from source other than the distribution's own repository can create problems for Linux. Of course. This is why Linux users are warned to only install software from their repository usin g the Package Manager, or from a trusted source. This is true of any operating system when the user may add a third party software which might conflict with the system.

Microsoft doesn't check these third party softwares and also doesn't maintain a central repository for them, people just take their chances by downloading them from various private sites around the internet and hope the software doesn't compromise the system. In Linux, such software is placed in the repositories AFTER they've been checked for safety.

So why should Microsoft be held to a higher standard for exactly the same situation? Of course anyone with even a little bit of knowledge about how software is developed would know better than to make such a comment in the first place.

It would be nice if Microsoft would meet the same standard as Linux, but history shows us that won't happen.

No it's not. The OP isn't installing XP on a blank drive, they're trying to do an unsupported (by the OEM) upgrade to an OEM modified version of Windows. Come on, that much was blindingly obvious to anyone who actually read the first post.

Also, you would be surprised at what makes it into Linux distribution repos without being checked. Most of the time the "checking" is "it compiled, ship it." You really think with thousands of little packages people can spend any significant amount of time testing each and every one every single time there's an update? Especially when you're relying primarily on volunteer effort. That one's just laughable on its face.

But then we get back to the point of my analogy. If you agree that installing software from some third party source can cause problems with a Linux distribution upgrade, why then should Microsoft be held to a more exacting standard? Unless you're willing to state that Linux distributions should fix the same problem. Of course then you get into the logistics of trying to do that and it won't take you more than 2-3 seconds of thought before you reach a point where it's completely unmanageable.

You'll never see the KDE or GNOME release manager saying anything about how Microsoft should fix this or that. You'll never see distribution managers making comments like that either. All because they have a very good sense of just how much work is involved and how many things are simply outside of your control that can throw a spanner in the works. Things that you will be blamed for regardless. Someone could have bad RAM, for example. Now if you have some magical means of repairing defective hardware with software, I'm sure your net worth will soon make Bill Gates look like some high school dropout flipping burgers for minimum wage. Otherwise, I think we can agree it's completely outside of the control of the software developer, but that won't matter to the end user. It's your program that crashed while they were trying to install it, so it's your program that sucks and is at fault. That's just one of the nearly infinite number of things that could go wrong, which have absolutely nothing to do with your software. Every time you get in your car and drive somewhere, you can't control what the other idiots on the road will do. Someone might cut you off, a tire on the car in front of you might blow out, someone could run a stop sign/light, there's a staggering number of possible hazards on the road. You can't possibly account for all of them, like a ladder falling off a truck in front of you on the freeway, so every time you get in your car to drive somewhere it's with the knowledge that something may go horribly wrong and all you can do is try and keep an eye out for the most likely things to happen. It's the same way with large software releases, heck, even small software releases. You can't account for everything, all you can do is try and account for the most likely things to happen.

I would think this much is rather obvious, even if you have no experience with software development at all. If you just stop and actually think about it for a second, even if you don't grasp some of the finer points, there should be enough parallels to the rest of daily life that you can realize just how difficult a task it is. So it kind of makes you wonder about the people who can't seem to figure this out.