Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




The thing I hate most about windows: End Now

Why do I have to hit "End Now" several times in some instances? I've got a few apps that repeatedly misbehave, and it takes several minutes and several clicks on the "End Now" button before they ever go away.

'kill -9' in linux gets rid of the offender instantly. Is there anything like that for windows?


Friday, June 04, 2004

win2k3's kill is "taskkill"  not sure if xp has it...

GiorgioG
Friday, June 04, 2004

Funny - I quite like it.  But then it usually behaves for me.

a cynic writes...
Friday, June 04, 2004

I tend to use "Kill Process Tree" from Task Manager (right click on the misbehaving process in the Processes Tab). 

I believe End Task simply sends a request to the application to exit gracefully (which obviously won't help much if the app isn't responding in the first place) and then waits for some timeout period before cutting off its life support.  Kill Process Tree just ends the process immediately, along with anything it spawned.

Joe
Friday, June 04, 2004

Clicking "End Task" turns around and dumps some portion of that process's memory to file, to prepare for the following "Do you want to send this crash to MS" dialog box.  If you click "End Task" and it doesn't end fast enough, look for a process called dumpprep.exe.  Kill that, and the original offending process should die off.

I'm unaware of any way to disable this funcitonality, though I suspect that a registry key is involved - I'm too lazy right now to go hunting.

Greg Hurlman
Friday, June 04, 2004

My favourite thing in Windows is when you tell it to shut down, and then return the next morning and it has a dialog informing you that an app isn't elegantly closing (it can be something as trivial as a notepad instance that wants to know if you want to save changes) and it'd like to know if it can kill it. This is especially funny on laptops.

Dennis Forbes
Friday, June 04, 2004

No, the worst thing about windows is that you fucking /need/ to press 'end now' once every 5 mive minutes.

There's a service you can disable that stops that irritating 'report this bug to microsoft' thing. And yeah killing the process from the process list tends to actually kill it rather than ask it nicely to fuck off and die

Matt
Friday, June 04, 2004

The reason for this "three click" problem is so that the process can save any unused data to disk and exit gracefully if necessary. Also it allows the program to dump data. Just killing thr process from Task Manager (the processes tab, not the applications tab) will work immediately.

And yep, you should wait for Windows to shut down if you want to be sure it won't be still displaying the dialog box the next morning. But it is useful to know that you forgot to save the doc you had been working on all morning.

Stephen Jones
Friday, June 04, 2004

"And yep, you should wait for Windows to shut down if you want to be sure it won't be still displaying the dialog box the next morning."

I'm notorious for the "just one more second!" trick with my wife, so when it's time to leave the PC it is definitely time to leave the PC.

In any case, how much of a programming challenge is it to make the core troublemaking apps (such as notepad) just save to a scratch location and then reopen it on bootup? Word actually does this quite elegantly (I mean in the event of a crash). At the very least hibernate the PC if for some reason a shut-down can't be accommodated in a timely manner (i.e. a minute).

Dennis Forbes
Friday, June 04, 2004

What I love is you shut your machine off and go home, only to come home in the morning to "This program is not responding, end now?".  Um, well, not anymore.  I'd like to abort the bloody shutdown and get to work.  But that's not an option.

Guess what Microsoft?  If I do a shutdown, and some task doesn't want to close, and I haven't noticed for, oh, 8 hours, then it's probably pretty farkin safe to just shut the damned thing down.

I know XP does this because it's run my laptop battery down doing this.  Asshats.

Snotnose
Friday, June 04, 2004

shutdown -r -f -t 0

Mike Treit
Friday, June 04, 2004

XP has "taskkill" also. You'd better know admin password if you want to kill something like winlogon, not sure if you need any priveledges on Linux for kill -9 for similar operation.

WildTiger
Friday, June 04, 2004

As a side note, killing winlogon is probably not a good example since doing so will cause an automatic STOP error (i.e., a blue screen of death)

Try it for fun :)

Mike Treit
Friday, June 04, 2004

How can this thread have gotten so far without anyone mentioning my favorite dialog: "Please exit all Microsoft Office applications before shutting down"?  (sorry if that's not verbatim).  Um, why do I have to close the application manually?  Can you imagine if everyone did that?

Brian
Friday, June 04, 2004


Disable Error Reporting:

Control Panel->System->Advanced->Error Reporting. Disable.

A Dingo Ate My Baby
Friday, June 04, 2004

I've always wondered what the significance of the -9 is in the kill command was. I haven't used Unix since VAXes were cutting edge, so forgive my ignorance of Linux. Do you still have to type the PID to kill off a process, or is there now a decent UI where you can just click on it?

I think Cygwin has a kill util for windows. You might try that

MilesArcher
Friday, June 04, 2004

I always report the errors to Microsoft because I like to help clog their server with results of their crappy services and IE crashes.

Bobby Z
Friday, June 04, 2004

There should be a dialog like this when shutting down:

---------------------------
Your Application
---------------------------
You have open application(s) that need their data
to be saved.

Do you want to disregard the changes and close Windows anyway and loose all data?
---------------------------
Yes  No    Cancel 
---------------------------

If the user awnser yes then close windows without any other dialog. Just a mention in the log if the person wants to sue anyone due to the lose of data. (If he is stupid enough to ignore this warning he will be stupid enough to erase his logs)

Somorone
Friday, June 04, 2004

"I always report the errors to Microsoft because I like to help clog their server with results of their crappy services and IE crashes. "

FYI, the product groups review all the responses - they've found in the past that small fixes cleared large percentages of crashes. So for everyone who's sent crash reports in - you're helping yourselves.

Philo

Philo
Friday, June 04, 2004

"I've always wondered what the significance of the -9 is in the kill command was."

It sends signal 9, i.e., SIGKILL, to the process.

"I haven't used Unix since VAXes were cutting edge, so forgive my ignorance of Linux. Do you still have to type the PID to kill off a process, or is there now a decent UI where you can just click on it?"

Google for "gnome system monitor".  (It looks remarkably similar to what NT has.)

Also, if you're using a recent version of Gnome, and you click the close-box of a window whose process isn't responding, it'll pop up a window giving you the option to kill it right there.

If you're at the command-line, you can also use 'killall' to kill a process by name instead of number.

Gnome Geek -- (this ain't your father's unix)
Friday, June 04, 2004

"There should be a dialog like this when shutting down:

---------------------------
Your Application
---------------------------
You have open application(s) that need their data
to be saved."

Or how about all applications just process the WM_ENDSESSION message and save whatever they have to a temp file? Forget about the stupid dialogs. If the user wants to power down, they should be able to power down.

Bobby Z
Friday, June 04, 2004

Why not have a journalled filesystem and just flick the switch off?

.
Saturday, June 05, 2004

I think they prefer us to hibernate our PC. That's why turning it off is so difficult.  They do this because they now that XP is very reliable and rebooting it is no longer needed to clear things up.

J
Saturday, June 05, 2004

NTFS is journalled

.
Saturday, June 05, 2004

>> FYI, the product groups review all the responses - they've found in the past that small fixes cleared large percentages of crashes. So for everyone who's sent crash reports in - you're helping yourselves.

Of course they do.  It's free QA testing for them.  Your bug report will generate a fix with may get incorporated into either a patch or a new product release which you'll have to pay for.

I never send in reports to Microsoft.  Let them pay for their own QA.

emacsdude
Saturday, June 05, 2004

---"They do this because they now that XP is very reliable and rebooting it is no longer needed to clear things up. "-------

Troll of the year!

I'll feed you. Two days on my work computer and I have to reboot.  The programs you open and the web sites you visit stay in memory and much sooner than you think you  are slowing to a crawl. Now 2 days with 256Mb of RAM would mean longer with 4GB of RAM, but on the other hand I'm only running all MS business software, IE< Outlook, Word, Access and IE apart from the occasional use of the Oracle database and Norton AV running in the background.

My home 2K machine would be good for a lot more uptime, but the noise from the fans means it gets turned off after every session.

Stephen Jones
Sunday, June 06, 2004

"I never send in reports to Microsoft.  Let them pay for their own QA."

No QA is going to catch all the peculiarities of 450 million different sytem configurations. Besides, if it did, you wouldn't want to pay for it.
I always send in the error reports, but please, do not follow my lead. In absense of the problem reports specific to your config, they will have more time to concentrate on mine.

Just me (Sir to you)
Monday, June 07, 2004

Well of course you can't test all combinations.  That's the problem of validation.  It's basic engineering.

AMD and Intel can build very sophisticated machines that don't crash.  Boeing can build highly reliable aircraft.  AT&T seems to be able to build a global communications network with almost 0 downtime (when was the last time you picked up the phone and didn't hear a dial tone?)  No - they can't test every single possibility, but their machines still seem to work reliably. 

Why can't Microsoft build reliable software?  Answer:  Their monopoly position allows them to remove the cost of validation with very little market consequence.  If the software crashes, what is my alternative?

I suppose that less buggy software is preferable to buggy software in the absence of choice, but I just feel ripped off.  They're leveraging my headaches to improve products which I'll still eventually have to pay for.

emacsdude
Monday, June 07, 2004

"AT&T seems to be able to build a global communications network with almost 0 downtime (when was the last time you picked up the phone and didn't hear a dial tone?)"

A couple months ago, probably.  Reliability doesn't only mean uptime, though.  That doesn't count dropped calls (happens to me every week or two), misdirected calls (happens every month or two), and periods of several seconds where the line seems to go dead, then returns as if nothing had happened (happens about every other call).

Maybe in the big cities you have great phone networks, but in the smaller towns in America (e.g., upstate NY) we kick our phones even more than we kick our computers.

hates phones
Wednesday, June 09, 2004

There are or were, some countries where you could go three days without being able to make a call to the right number (the Czech Republic, which also has the most dishonest and aggressive taxi drivers in the world was like that a few years ago - and I remember being unable to phone out of Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia for a week in 1999). And of course I call in the telephone company in Sri Lanka once every two months (the normal reason is a coconut tree having fallen on the line  - in rural Virginia I'm told it's squirrels eating them).

The reasons are different from unreliablity in software. When copper was everywhere the main reason it seems was that the contacts would get covered in verdigris, and if the phone company was remiss about cleaning them reliability would go to hell.

More important telephony is a mature technology. That is why I oppose any suggestion of VOIP, however much it may be the wave of the future (the 'wave of the future@ should stick to where it belongs - in the future). At the moment when the network goes down at least you can phone the sysadmin to tell him.

Stephen Jones
Thursday, June 10, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home