Why can't Windows shut down promptly?

Iria · Mar 28, 2009, 08:05 PM

Back in the old days when TVs and radios had tubes, it took a couple of minutes for a set to warm up before you could watch or listen. But even then, you could turn it off instantly. That's not true with Windows PCs. Not only does it sometimes take seemingly forever for them to boot, but it can take several minutes for one to shut down. Even worse, if a program stops responding, you may or may not be able to shut it down. And even if it does terminate, it may take awhile.

And by the way, I'm not just talking about Windows XP and Vista. I'm having the same problem with Windows 7 though, to be fair, the new operating system is still in beta so it's possible that Microsoft could amaze and delight me by fixing this in the final version.
_______________
Source: Larry Magid at Large

Customgamer1 · Mar 28, 2009, 10:17 PM

I don't understand?

My windows XP,Vista, and 7 all shut down within decent time. I even time and it is under 30 seconds easy.

OldBuzzard · Mar 29, 2009, 12:03 AM

That guy is an idiot. A fresh install of XP or Vista does shut down almost instantly. As you install more and more drivers and applications it does start to slow down, but that is hardly Microsoft's fault.

The question he needs to ask is "Why do so many third party people write crappy drivers and/or software that slows down my OS?".

Quote:

Larry Magid has been a technology columnist and broadcaster for more than two decades as well as a leading Internet safety advocate.

If he's been at this for "more than two decades", and hasn't figured that out, he needs to find a different job, cause he's not bright enough for the one he has now. People that write drivel like he just wrote need to be publically flogged, and then required to dig ditches with shovels for the rest of their life, as a shovel is just about the highest form of tech they really understand.

Lowfat · Mar 29, 2009, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Customgamer1

I don't understand?

My windows XP,Vista, and 7 all shut down within decent time. I even time and it is under 30 seconds easy.

For me:
OSX 6.7 seconds to shut down
Vista 27.0 seconds to shut down. And the Vista machine is a way more powerful machine.

It is slow but really who cares how long it takes to shut down. I also don't understand why people care if their computer takes an extra 20 seconds to boot up either.

Customgamer1 · Mar 29, 2009, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lowfat

For me:
OSX 6.7 seconds to shut down
Vista 27.0 seconds to shut down. And the Vista machine is a way more powerful machine.

It is slow but really who cares how long it takes to shut down. I also don't understand why people care if their computer takes an extra 20 seconds to boot up either.

Well I hate waiting even 10 seconds for my computer to boot up. I just want it on NOW so I can do what I want to do. So with my laptop it is great that I can just put it into sleep mode and it comes to life in about 1 second!

BlueMak · Mar 29, 2009, 03:42 AM

Although I still think it is anal to make a fuss about boot up times, saying it is a problem if your PC shuts down in 5, 10 or 30 sec is just beyond all my understanding.
The reason for that is the following. It is night, I want to go to bed and I have no reason to leave my PC on, what I do is click on shutdown and....leave the room. Although it doesn't take even close to 30 sec, far less, I still don't care, I mean, how anal do you have to be to sit down after you have started the shut down sequence and wait/count the seconds it takes...wow.

WaltC · Mar 29, 2009, 04:55 AM

I also thought this article was extremely strange. Here's what I had to say to Larry about that in the CNet forum:

OK, I'm reading "Larry Magid at Large" and I'm completely baffled as to how someone who might be able to capture so much ignorance in so few words is remotely associated even obscurely with the general subject of "computers." I don't understand how such columns survive CNet's editorial process--and of course I am assuming that CNet actually has *some kind* of editorial review before its articles are posted for all the world to see. How embarrassing to actually publish an article like this.

Geez, I mean whether a TV or a radio has vacuum tubes--or transistors--has absolutely nothing to do with how quickly such a device may be switched on or off in comparison to a personal computer--it's a matter of a simple electrical power switch which allows electricity to flow into the device or else breaks that flow. TVs and radios are not computers and do not operate as computers. There is an enormous difference between toasters, TVs and radios, and personal computers, and I'm hopeful that Larry will at some point begin to fathom the differences. When Larry is able to do this then I am sure that Larry will at last understand why personal computers are not designed to instantly turn themselves on and off as toasters, TVs, and radios are designed to do. What a happy day that will be for Larry, I am sure.

The problem that Larry is evidently completely baffled by has its roots in the nature of what a computer is. First, Larry must understand that a TV is not a personal computer and vice versa. Second, Larry needs to understand that what computers do is to execute programs that are written by programmers, most of whom had absolutely nothing to do whatever with the design of the computer hardware on which those programs are being run. A TV, however, does not need programs of this type in order to function. It is a series of circuits which, when powered by electricity through the auspices of an on-off power switch, is designed to do but a single task, which is to process the signals fed to its circuits in such a way that picture and sound result in a manner intelligible by the human brain.

A personal computer, however, may in fact be running dozens, possibly hundreds of tasks, or even programs, in sequence at such a switching speed that all of those tasks appear to the human brain to be executing simultaneously. Basically, Larry can feel free to either unplug his operating computer from the wall at any time, or else to simply hold closed the power button for a few seconds, and Larry will get what he's after--which is the instantaneous cessation of the operation of his computer. Larry can do this now--no need to wait on Microsoft to show Larry how to do this. But...there's a slight problem in such behavior.

Because a computer, again, is not a TV or a radio, Larry is likely to become very unhappy with what will result from such activity. Namely, all of the computer programs that are operating inside Larry's computer at incredibly rapid switching speeds will be interrupted improperly when Larry unplugs his computer from the wall socket. This will result in a phenomenon known as "file corruption" within the files that reside on the hard drive inside Larry's computer. In turn, this means that if Larry decides that his personal computer is indeed nothing more advanced than a radio or a TV, and Larry decides to instantly turn the power to his computer off and on just as he does with his radio or TV, then Larry will soon find himself with a personal computer so hosed that no matter how many times Larry turns it on or off it just won't do anything except fail to function in the manner to which Larry has become accustomed. Larry will be very unhappy should he decide that his personal computer should operate just like his clock radio or his microwave oven or his TV set.

Poor Larry. It's so sad to think that a grown man writing columns in a computer-based Internet website really has no idea of the fundamental differences between TVs and computers. In other words, poor Larry really just doesn't grasp even the basics of what a personal computer is. Indeed, Larry seems also to be completely limited to Windows-based computers because he makes no mention of any other computers, and that means that Larry doesn't know that in this regard all personal computers operate according the same principles and behave in the same way--ie, no personal computer on earth switches on or off instantly like a TV or radio, and--yawn--that's because no personal computer on earth is either a TV or a radio.

But I am nothing if not an optimist and I do believe, fervently, that Larry will one day understand how and why his personal computer is a computer instead of a TV or a radio. Then he will no longer be puzzled as to why it takes longer for a computer to shut down than it does to turn off a TV. After all, I cannot imagine such ignorance as bliss--it must be torture. Good. Grief.

______________

Specifically to DH readers:

Why is it that people are sometimes so willfully obstinate about the simplest things? I have no doubt that Larry well understands why personal computers aren't instant on-off devices like TVs and radios. And of course I'm sure that Larry knows the difference. So why is it he pretends he has no such knowledge? And why is it that he pretends that only Windows-based computers fail to turn off and on instantly like TVs and radios? I'm sure he knows that isn't true, as well.

Notice he's careful to never say that any other type of computer is an instant on/off device, either--because he knows they aren't. Rather, he simply laments that Windows-based computers aren't instant on/off devices, which makes no sense, unless I make the conjecture that he is simply trying to write anti-Windows propaganda without the appearance of doing so...

But to me that makes no sense, either, since I can't imagine anyone wasting his time doing that. Yet, that seems to be what he's doing without a doubt.

So why the pretension? Are people really so biased that they'd go to such lengths to try and make something look bad even though they know it isn't close to being as bad as they pretend it is? Do they believe they are speaking to a captive audience so ignorant that anything they say to that audience will be immediately believed?

I just can't figure it out. Larry has to know better--he just has to. He can't be a grown man with years of computer experience who writes columns about computers on an Internet site specializing in technical news and opinion and really think that a personal computer is "supposed" to turn on and off instantly just like a TV set...

It's just nonsense.

As another poster mentioned above, a clean Windows installation, just like a clean OS X installation, or a clean Linux installation, or a clean anything installation, will result in bootup and shutdown times which seem darn near instantaneous when compared to any OS which is packed with programs the user has installed which request to run at either bootup or shutdown or both--and there are lots of such programs around--not the least of which are AV programs, for instance.

It's very, very difficult for me to believe that someone like Larry just doesn't know anything about that, apparently. Unlike TVs or radios, computers run programs, and, obviously, bootup or shutdown speeds depend on how many programs in a system are running at those times, and the tasks they are supposed to complete at those times.

It's not a "Windows thing" at all. It's a "computer thing," is what it is. So how come Larry doesn't get it? How come CNet article editors don't get it? The only answer I can regrettably come up with is that when it comes to Windows in general there are lots of things that CNet authors and CNet editors simply choose to deliberately misunderstand and improperly characterize.

Who's the real loser when they do that? Maybe they think it's Microsoft and maybe that provides them with some weird feeling of accomplishment. But I think it's the people who read these kinds of articles and don't know any better that are the real losers, and I lose respect for any major Internet technical publisher whenever I come across this kind of thing. It seems to me to be the worst that technical journalism has to offer.

Customgamer1 · Mar 29, 2009, 05:51 AM

Wow that was a lot to read, but I agree with you.

He is just trying to find little things to complain about. Nothing anyone else makes is ever good enough for some people unless those complainers make it (then they call what they make the best)...

No matter what it is people will find something that is not just right and make sure everyone knows about it.

I am so happy I don't have that personality or I would go nuts. I for one over look a lot of problems and just use what I have because nothing can be perfect. People just need to chill about the little stuff.

clanman · Mar 29, 2009, 09:42 AM

Waltc, do you not think if you were a little less patronising to the guy that he might feel more obliged to respond. I don't think ive ever read someone using another's name in such a condescending way so many times in a post (Larry was used 27 times in your reply).

While I appreciate basically what you are saying is that a computer isn't a toaster or a TV I do feel that microsoft could implement a much more efficient shut down routine than they do currently. There are modifications which are easy to make which terminate running processes much faster than microsoft's system. Microsoft have a play safe figure they use to ensure that all processes are terminated correctly but there has been much debate on whether their preset time is actually bordering on "oversafe" rather than actually a good balance of decent shutdown versus safety.

I mean anyone who uses other operating systems such as unix (macosx) or any distro of linux has to wait a slight time for shutdown to finish but it is a fraction of windows requirements.

In many ways Microsoft are still behind the 8 ball in regards to coding efficiency, but people rely on them so much for specific support and for gaming that we live with it. Its only until other alternatives are tried and tested do we actually see how sloppy they are in many regards.

OldBuzzard · Mar 29, 2009, 02:51 PM

It's obvious the Larry was feeling some shrinkage in his epecker, and every one knows that the easiest and fastest way to enhance your epecker is to say/publish anything negative (whether it's true or not) about "The Great Satan of Computing", Microsoft or Bill Gates.

Actually, this isn't anytihng new. Just the names have changed. I started working with computers when memory was measured in K, and speed in cards per minute. Back then, "The Great Satan of Computing" was IBM and they recieved the same treatment that Microsoft is now. Any "journalist" that wanted to feel important would slam IBM, and extoll the virtues of the mainframes from NCR, RCA, Univac, and others. Those of us that had worked with non-IBM systems ( I had the unfortunare experience of having to work with an NCR Century series for a year), knew better.

BlueMak · Mar 29, 2009, 02:57 PM

WHY do people CARE for if Windows takes 10 or 20 or 30 seconds to shutdown? I mean, you have already decided to shut down the system, what are you doing counting the seconds it needs to switch off? It's just....stupid.

Zardon · Mar 29, 2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMak

WHY do people CARE for if Windows takes 10 or 20 or 30 seconds to shutdown? I mean, you have already decided to shut down the system, what are you doing counting the seconds it needs to switch off? It's just....stupid.

You see, I appreciate what you are saying here because I personally don't mind but i think that many enthusiasts have this mentality that if "I don't see a problem then its not a problem". Everyone's views on this are different. I know from speaking to a few people that the shutdown time on their machines varies massively. A friend of mine had a machine that would just hang on shutdown for 10 minutes then hard lock. I know another guy who would frequently check the news before work and found that his machine was taking 2 minutes to shut down which he didn't have as he needed to leave for work - he would end up just pulling the plug and one day it wouldn't post as him shutting it off like this had hosed his paging file. He wouldn't mind letting it do its own thing to shut down but sometimes it would still be on when he returned from work that night. I think its maybe reassuring for people to see the machines completely off rather than hoping it works out if they leave it.

I don't know about the rest of you guys reading this but I frequently end up troubleshooting machines for friends and family and friends of friends and family. It got to the point recently where I bought another phone which I use for my own personal stuff and I turn the other one off at night to get some peace.

So in closing, I would say that I personally don't find it is an issue and I have the ability to fix almost anything that can go wrong with windows, linux or unix but I think for a slightly less educated user it can be an issue.

BlueMak · Mar 29, 2009, 03:40 PM

Fair points.

I wonder, if turning virtual memory/page file off would increase the shut down speed. Anyone care to experiment? lol

Matth · Mar 30, 2009, 04:43 PM

Interesting point though, what would be the penalty of making an operating system and apps capable of instant shutdown.

1. No write caching - EVER (ok still a slight possibility of corruption if a write was in progress).
2. No pending saves of background date (in this context, it's a given that actual data files would have to either be saved or lost).

The main key to "just power off" functionality, would be that nothing could be left in an inconsistent state, though there is little that could be done to mitigate the I/O delay of writing data and then index, though the key factor is that failure of any partially completed action should be the same as it not happening at all.

I'm sure a no gripe, always safe OS would have some uses, particularly in areas where people are not disciplined to letting a shutdown complete.

BlueMak · Mar 30, 2009, 05:58 PM

Perhaps a shutdown with a "lag" would work, at least for laptops. Same way as with how the xbox 360 keeps downloading after you have shut off the unit, only that in this case it would continue to shut down while the signal to the monitor was cut and the fans were off, etc, you get the picture.
Of course that wouldn't make it instant ON, for that you would need the OS to be like the ones in the Home Computers like Atari ST, CPC, etc, on a (due to the size) super fast memory.

Vikingod · Mar 30, 2009, 06:16 PM

I've been using the sleep function more and more lately. Of course I shut-down every few days for good measure, but Vista's sleep function seems to solve most problems people have about the boot-up/shut-down of the PC. I've not noticed and degradation in performance either, at least in the few games I play anymore.

Judas · Mar 30, 2009, 08:16 PM

90% it's he operators fault.
9% of which is the manufacturers or the products they buy, own fault.
1% windows fault

vicsrealms · Apr 6, 2009, 04:06 AM

I would like it if my system would shutdown, unfortunately my system will shutdown windows yet keep the dvd player, mouse, keyboard, and fans going still. Never had that happen before. So, after changing out everything from the PSU to different mice I have contacted Gigabyte to see whats up with my EP45-DQ6. Other then that, windows shuts down fine.

Dark Lord · Apr 6, 2009, 04:30 AM

would be nice if it did shut down faster. i dont know what my average shut down time is, but i know ive sat here for upto 5 mins before when something hangs.

only reason i wait for it to shut off is because i turn off the power strip that everything is plugged into.

Mac Daddy · Apr 6, 2009, 12:23 PM

Vista on both my machines here generally shut down in seconds unless it is configuring updates or something.

Cow_160483 · Apr 6, 2009, 01:36 PM

To be honest i really dont mind how long a PC takes to shut down as log as the start up time is reasonable usually <30seconds

Ps: you could always use the force shutdown from the command prompt

Mar 28, 2009, 08:05 PM	#1
Iria DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 7,275 Rep Power: 89	Why can't Windows shut down promptly? Back in the old days when TVs and radios had tubes, it took a couple of minutes for a set to warm up before you could watch or listen. But even then, you could turn it off instantly. That's not true with Windows PCs. Not only does it sometimes take seemingly forever for them to boot, but it can take several minutes for one to shut down. Even worse, if a program stops responding, you may or may not be able to shut it down. And even if it does terminate, it may take awhile. And by the way, I'm not just talking about Windows XP and Vista. I'm having the same problem with Windows 7 though, to be fair, the new operating system is still in beta so it's possible that Microsoft could amaze and delight me by fixing this in the final version. _______________ Source: Larry Magid at Large

Mar 28, 2009, 10:17 PM	#2
Customgamer1 Fell off the tech wagon Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 2,273 Rep Power: 74 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? I don't understand? My windows XP,Vista, and 7 all shut down within decent time. I even time and it is under 30 seconds easy. __________________ Asus Laptop: 2.5 Intel Core 2 Duo, 4gigs DDR 2, Windows 7 64bit! Windows 7 > OSX!

Mar 29, 2009, 03:42 AM	#6
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,478 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? Although I still think it is anal to make a fuss about boot up times, saying it is a problem if your PC shuts down in 5, 10 or 30 sec is just beyond all my understanding. The reason for that is the following. It is night, I want to go to bed and I have no reason to leave my PC on, what I do is click on shutdown and....leave the room. Although it doesn't take even close to 30 sec, far less, I still don't care, I mean, how anal do you have to be to sit down after you have started the shut down sequence and wait/count the seconds it takes...wow. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Mar 29, 2009, 04:55 AM	#7
WaltC DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: May 2003 Location: Deep in Martian soil where it's warm and the air is good Posts: 245 Rep Power: 0	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? I also thought this article was extremely strange. Here's what I had to say to Larry about that in the CNet forum: OK, I'm reading "Larry Magid at Large" and I'm completely baffled as to how someone who might be able to capture so much ignorance in so few words is remotely associated even obscurely with the general subject of "computers." I don't understand how such columns survive CNet's editorial process--and of course I am assuming that CNet actually has some kind of editorial review before its articles are posted for all the world to see. How embarrassing to actually publish an article like this. Geez, I mean whether a TV or a radio has vacuum tubes--or transistors--has absolutely nothing to do with how quickly such a device may be switched on or off in comparison to a personal computer--it's a matter of a simple electrical power switch which allows electricity to flow into the device or else breaks that flow. TVs and radios are not computers and do not operate as computers. There is an enormous difference between toasters, TVs and radios, and personal computers, and I'm hopeful that Larry will at some point begin to fathom the differences. When Larry is able to do this then I am sure that Larry will at last understand why personal computers are not designed to instantly turn themselves on and off as toasters, TVs, and radios are designed to do. What a happy day that will be for Larry, I am sure. The problem that Larry is evidently completely baffled by has its roots in the nature of what a computer is. First, Larry must understand that a TV is not a personal computer and vice versa. Second, Larry needs to understand that what computers do is to execute programs that are written by programmers, most of whom had absolutely nothing to do whatever with the design of the computer hardware on which those programs are being run. A TV, however, does not need programs of this type in order to function. It is a series of circuits which, when powered by electricity through the auspices of an on-off power switch, is designed to do but a single task, which is to process the signals fed to its circuits in such a way that picture and sound result in a manner intelligible by the human brain. A personal computer, however, may in fact be running dozens, possibly hundreds of tasks, or even programs, in sequence at such a switching speed that all of those tasks appear to the human brain to be executing simultaneously. Basically, Larry can feel free to either unplug his operating computer from the wall at any time, or else to simply hold closed the power button for a few seconds, and Larry will get what he's after--which is the instantaneous cessation of the operation of his computer. Larry can do this now--no need to wait on Microsoft to show Larry how to do this. But...there's a slight problem in such behavior. Because a computer, again, is not a TV or a radio, Larry is likely to become very unhappy with what will result from such activity. Namely, all of the computer programs that are operating inside Larry's computer at incredibly rapid switching speeds will be interrupted improperly when Larry unplugs his computer from the wall socket. This will result in a phenomenon known as "file corruption" within the files that reside on the hard drive inside Larry's computer. In turn, this means that if Larry decides that his personal computer is indeed nothing more advanced than a radio or a TV, and Larry decides to instantly turn the power to his computer off and on just as he does with his radio or TV, then Larry will soon find himself with a personal computer so hosed that no matter how many times Larry turns it on or off it just won't do anything except fail to function in the manner to which Larry has become accustomed. Larry will be very unhappy should he decide that his personal computer should operate just like his clock radio or his microwave oven or his TV set. Poor Larry. It's so sad to think that a grown man writing columns in a computer-based Internet website really has no idea of the fundamental differences between TVs and computers. In other words, poor Larry really just doesn't grasp even the basics of what a personal computer is. Indeed, Larry seems also to be completely limited to Windows-based computers because he makes no mention of any other computers, and that means that Larry doesn't know that in this regard all personal computers operate according the same principles and behave in the same way--ie, no personal computer on earth switches on or off instantly like a TV or radio, and--yawn--that's because no personal computer on earth is either a TV or a radio. But I am nothing if not an optimist and I do believe, fervently, that Larry will one day understand how and why his personal computer is a computer instead of a TV or a radio. Then he will no longer be puzzled as to why it takes longer for a computer to shut down than it does to turn off a TV. After all, I cannot imagine such ignorance as bliss--it must be torture. Good. Grief. ______________ Specifically to DH readers: Why is it that people are sometimes so willfully obstinate about the simplest things? I have no doubt that Larry well understands why personal computers aren't instant on-off devices like TVs and radios. And of course I'm sure that Larry knows the difference. So why is it he pretends he has no such knowledge? And why is it that he pretends that only Windows-based computers fail to turn off and on instantly like TVs and radios? I'm sure he knows that isn't true, as well. Notice he's careful to never say that any other type of computer is an instant on/off device, either--because he knows they aren't. Rather, he simply laments that Windows-based computers aren't instant on/off devices, which makes no sense, unless I make the conjecture that he is simply trying to write anti-Windows propaganda without the appearance of doing so... But to me that makes no sense, either, since I can't imagine anyone wasting his time doing that. Yet, that seems to be what he's doing without a doubt. So why the pretension? Are people really so biased that they'd go to such lengths to try and make something look bad even though they know it isn't close to being as bad as they pretend it is? Do they believe they are speaking to a captive audience so ignorant that anything they say to that audience will be immediately believed? I just can't figure it out. Larry has to know better--he just has to. He can't be a grown man with years of computer experience who writes columns about computers on an Internet site specializing in technical news and opinion and really think that a personal computer is "supposed" to turn on and off instantly just like a TV set... It's just nonsense. As another poster mentioned above, a clean Windows installation, just like a clean OS X installation, or a clean Linux installation, or a clean anything installation, will result in bootup and shutdown times which seem darn near instantaneous when compared to any OS which is packed with programs the user has installed which request to run at either bootup or shutdown or both--and there are lots of such programs around--not the least of which are AV programs, for instance. It's very, very difficult for me to believe that someone like Larry just doesn't know anything about that, apparently. Unlike TVs or radios, computers run programs, and, obviously, bootup or shutdown speeds depend on how many programs in a system are running at those times, and the tasks they are supposed to complete at those times. It's not a "Windows thing" at all. It's a "computer thing," is what it is. So how come Larry doesn't get it? How come CNet article editors don't get it? The only answer I can regrettably come up with is that when it comes to Windows in general there are lots of things that CNet authors and CNet editors simply choose to deliberately misunderstand and improperly characterize. Who's the real loser when they do that? Maybe they think it's Microsoft and maybe that provides them with some weird feeling of accomplishment. But I think it's the people who read these kinds of articles and don't know any better that are the real losers, and I lose respect for any major Internet technical publisher whenever I come across this kind of thing. It seems to me to be the worst that technical journalism has to offer.

Mar 29, 2009, 05:51 AM	#8
Customgamer1 Fell off the tech wagon Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 2,273 Rep Power: 74 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? Wow that was a lot to read, but I agree with you. He is just trying to find little things to complain about. Nothing anyone else makes is ever good enough for some people unless those complainers make it (then they call what they make the best)... No matter what it is people will find something that is not just right and make sure everyone knows about it. I am so happy I don't have that personality or I would go nuts. I for one over look a lot of problems and just use what I have because nothing can be perfect. People just need to chill about the little stuff. __________________ Asus Laptop: 2.5 Intel Core 2 Duo, 4gigs DDR 2, Windows 7 64bit! Windows 7 > OSX!

Mar 29, 2009, 09:42 AM	#9
clanman DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 152 Rep Power: 34	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? Waltc, do you not think if you were a little less patronising to the guy that he might feel more obliged to respond. I don't think ive ever read someone using another's name in such a condescending way so many times in a post (Larry was used 27 times in your reply). While I appreciate basically what you are saying is that a computer isn't a toaster or a TV I do feel that microsoft could implement a much more efficient shut down routine than they do currently. There are modifications which are easy to make which terminate running processes much faster than microsoft's system. Microsoft have a play safe figure they use to ensure that all processes are terminated correctly but there has been much debate on whether their preset time is actually bordering on "oversafe" rather than actually a good balance of decent shutdown versus safety. I mean anyone who uses other operating systems such as unix (macosx) or any distro of linux has to wait a slight time for shutdown to finish but it is a fraction of windows requirements. In many ways Microsoft are still behind the 8 ball in regards to coding efficiency, but people rely on them so much for specific support and for gaming that we live with it. Its only until other alternatives are tried and tested do we actually see how sloppy they are in many regards.

Mar 29, 2009, 02:51 PM	#10
OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oberlin, OH Posts: 2,783 Rep Power: 145 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? It's obvious the Larry was feeling some shrinkage in his epecker, and every one knows that the easiest and fastest way to enhance your epecker is to say/publish anything negative (whether it's true or not) about "The Great Satan of Computing", Microsoft or Bill Gates. Actually, this isn't anytihng new. Just the names have changed. I started working with computers when memory was measured in K, and speed in cards per minute. Back then, "The Great Satan of Computing" was IBM and they recieved the same treatment that Microsoft is now. Any "journalist" that wanted to feel important would slam IBM, and extoll the virtues of the mainframes from NCR, RCA, Univac, and others. Those of us that had worked with non-IBM systems ( I had the unfortunare experience of having to work with an NCR Century series for a year), knew better. __________________ When looking for a reason as to why things go wrong, never rule out sheer STUPIDITY

Mar 29, 2009, 02:57 PM	#11
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,478 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? WHY do people CARE for if Windows takes 10 or 20 or 30 seconds to shutdown? I mean, you have already decided to shut down the system, what are you doing counting the seconds it needs to switch off? It's just....stupid. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Mar 29, 2009, 03:40 PM	#13
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,478 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? Fair points. I wonder, if turning virtual memory/page file off would increase the shut down speed. Anyone care to experiment? lol __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Mar 30, 2009, 04:43 PM	#14
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? Interesting point though, what would be the penalty of making an operating system and apps capable of instant shutdown. 1. No write caching - EVER (ok still a slight possibility of corruption if a write was in progress). 2. No pending saves of background date (in this context, it's a given that actual data files would have to either be saved or lost). The main key to "just power off" functionality, would be that nothing could be left in an inconsistent state, though there is little that could be done to mitigate the I/O delay of writing data and then index, though the key factor is that failure of any partially completed action should be the same as it not happening at all. I'm sure a no gripe, always safe OS would have some uses, particularly in areas where people are not disciplined to letting a shutdown complete. __________________ Mary had a little lamb, Her father shot it dead Now Mary takes her lamb to school, Between two crusts of bread

Mar 30, 2009, 05:58 PM	#15
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,478 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? Perhaps a shutdown with a "lag" would work, at least for laptops. Same way as with how the xbox 360 keeps downloading after you have shut off the unit, only that in this case it would continue to shut down while the signal to the monitor was cut and the fans were off, etc, you get the picture. Of course that wouldn't make it instant ON, for that you would need the OS to be like the ones in the Home Computers like Atari ST, CPC, etc, on a (due to the size) super fast memory. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Mar 30, 2009, 06:16 PM	#16
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,197 Rep Power: 112 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? I've been using the sleep function more and more lately. Of course I shut-down every few days for good measure, but Vista's sleep function seems to solve most problems people have about the boot-up/shut-down of the PC. I've not noticed and degradation in performance either, at least in the few games I play anymore.

Apr 6, 2009, 04:06 AM	#18
vicsrealms DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Texas, US Posts: 58 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? I would like it if my system would shutdown, unfortunately my system will shutdown windows yet keep the dvd player, mouse, keyboard, and fans going still. Never had that happen before. So, after changing out everything from the PSU to different mice I have contacted Gigabyte to see whats up with my EP45-DQ6. Other then that, windows shuts down fine.

Apr 6, 2009, 04:30 AM	#19
Dark Lord HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 5,945 Rep Power: 125 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? would be nice if it did shut down faster. i dont know what my average shut down time is, but i know ive sat here for upto 5 mins before when something hangs. only reason i wait for it to shut off is because i turn off the power strip that everything is plugged into. __________________

Apr 6, 2009, 12:23 PM	#20
Mac Daddy DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 7,950 Rep Power: 80 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? Vista on both my machines here generally shut down in seconds unless it is configuring updates or something. __________________ "My mom said the only reason men are alive is for lawn care and vehicle maintenance." - Tim Allen

Apr 6, 2009, 01:36 PM	#21
Cow_160483 HH's only cow moooooo... Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: BOTSWANA Posts: 6,821 Rep Power: 300 System Specs	Re: Why can't Windows shut down promptly? To be honest i really dont mind how long a PC takes to shut down as log as the start up time is reasonable usually <30seconds Ps: you could always use the force shutdown from the command prompt __________________ Decode! Muhahahahah!