I have always thought about the shutdown crapfest as not being able to shutdown for like ... 25 reasons? I believe there is a KB entry somewhere listing a bunch of them. Almost impossible to troubleshoot ( network connections! )
I once had a Windows 7 machine refuse to shut down because it was "Playing Logoff Sound"!
The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
11–20 of 122 posts
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#12I started at MS during Vista and I've been involved (sometimes tangentially) with Windows ever since. This is all my opinion, but It's been very interesting seeing the decision making process change over time. If I had to summarize the change, I'd say that it's evolved from an expertise-based system to a data based system. The reason why eight people were present at every planning meeting is because their expert opin…
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#13I have always thought about the shutdown crapfest as not being able to shutdown for like ... 25 reasons? I believe there is a KB entry somewhere listing a bunch of them. Almost impossible to troubleshoot ( network connections! )
Task Manager... don't even get me started. It feels like half the time when I try to end a process, it won't end. It'll hang up Task Manager or something else will freak out before you actually end a non-responsive process.
This is why I feel Windows can't shut down half the time. It doesn't actually seem to be able to kill and shutdown it's own processes. So when shutdown time comes, one little app hang and you'll just sit there forever.
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#14I started at MS during Vista and I've been involved (sometimes tangentially) with Windows ever since. This is all my opinion, but It's been very interesting seeing the decision making process change over time. If I had to summarize the change, I'd say that it's evolved from an expertise-based system to a data based system. The reason why eight people were present at every planning meeting is because their expert opin…
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#15I started at MS during Vista and I've been involved (sometimes tangentially) with Windows ever since. This is all my opinion, but It's been very interesting seeing the decision making process change over time. If I had to summarize the change, I'd say that it's evolved from an expertise-based system to a data based system. The reason why eight people were present at every planning meeting is because their expert opin…
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#16I started at MS during Vista and I've been involved (sometimes tangentially) with Windows ever since. This is all my opinion, but It's been very interesting seeing the decision making process change over time. If I had to summarize the change, I'd say that it's evolved from an expertise-based system to a data based system. The reason why eight people were present at every planning meeting is because their expert opin…
Doesn't the focus on data simply shift the problems you describe to telemetry decisions?
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#17I have always thought about the shutdown crapfest as not being able to shutdown for like ... 25 reasons? I believe there is a KB entry somewhere listing a bunch of them. Almost impossible to troubleshoot ( network connections! )
Is it just me, or shouldn't an OS be able to kill it's own processes? When I kill -9 in Linux, the application is dead, gone... doesn't hang, doesn't sit there frozen. Task Manager... don't even get me started. It feels like half the time when I try to end a process, it won't end. It'll hang up Task Manager or something else will freak out before you actually end a non-responsive process. This is why I feel Windows c…
Where this becomes relevant is that when you shut down, Windows doesn't just kill -9 everything (which it is totally capable of doing), but instead, politely informs all running processes of the imminent shutdown so that they can clean themselves up and finish anything important. If things take too long, Windows shows the screen to the user with the "Shut Down Now" button which, when pressed, indicates to the OS that the god of the realm has given Windows the authority to purge everything and shut down.
The problem seems to be that Windows seems to consider "takes too long" as just a few seconds in some cases, and is reluctant to just begin culling everything of its own accord, and therefore asks for permission and authorization. Windows assumes that any program the user run must be doing "Important" work, otherwise, why would you run it?
This "User is God" mindset seems to be gone with the 8/10 versions though, which makes me rather sad
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#18I can relate to this. It was a common theme across Microsoft. In one instance, the team I was part of was responsible for the initial integration of Bing and Facebook. We had about 24 dedicated people on the team (a few partner/principal group managers too!). Our team was considered agile because we released most features every 4 months (this was around 2009 I think)!!! Anyway, we had a hackathon at Facebook with Zuc…
I mean, long ago you just had a physical switch on the power supply. But then filesystem authors invented buffering and that wasn't safe anymore. So now there were two ways to shut the machine off: the "safe" way and the old way (where the "old" way was still available via e.g. holding the power button down for 4 seconds).
Then, we wanted to start using laptops and carrying them around. But booting the whole computer again and again every time you changed your seat became a chore, so software people invented this cool new trick where you could dump memory to disk and restore it later, so "hibernation" was born and we now had three ways to shut down.
Then the hardware people jumped in and pointed out that really the problem here is just the CPU. DRAM refresh is cheap, so there's really no need to dump the RAM at all. Let's just shut the CPU off and come up with a hardware/firmware/OS/driver hack (yeah, it touches basically everything) for powering on into a known DRAM configuration. Much faster! And now we had a fourth way to shut down.
(OK, this is a little spun. In fact suspend to disk and suspend to RAM landed nearly simultaneously in the PC world, with different manufacturers picking different horses. Then of course ACPI came in and standardized both, forever locking us into not one but two kinds of suspend.)
Then of course, we had a paradigm shift where "mobile" OSes revisted this whole scheme and threw it out the window. The hardware people making mobile chips designed the clock and power gating logic such that the "suspend to RAM" happens essentially every time the CPU reaches an idle state, and never has to be "entered" explicitly the way ACPI S3 is. And now PCs are shipping with this scheme too even on systems where ACPI still works in a traditional way. So, yeah. FIVE.
I mean, Microsoft surely made a UI mess out of this. But it's not like they were handed a simple problem to begin with.
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#19I have always thought about the shutdown crapfest as not being able to shutdown for like ... 25 reasons? I believe there is a KB entry somewhere listing a bunch of them. Almost impossible to troubleshoot ( network connections! )
Is it just me, or shouldn't an OS be able to kill it's own processes? When I kill -9 in Linux, the application is dead, gone... doesn't hang, doesn't sit there frozen. Task Manager... don't even get me started. It feels like half the time when I try to end a process, it won't end. It'll hang up Task Manager or something else will freak out before you actually end a non-responsive process. This is why I feel Windows c…
Desktop Linux user here -- while there are lots of advantages to Linux, this is not among them. At least, not without qualification. If something goes wrong with the graphics system and X hangs, SIGKILL bounces right off your window manager. But at least under Linux you can still ssh into the box and reboot it.
Re: The Windows Shutdown crapfest (2006)
#20Consequently I am that minority in the team delivering features that customers use. I take personal pride in that and keep quiet about it. Those reports, those plans, the documentation, the mock ups, the meetings and the emails are not in the final product, all that work counted for next to nothing. Ultimately it was mostly two of us working away and refining the specs by collaboration with stakeholders on an informal basis. Because we understand the problem space we are able to ask the important questions and I think stakeholders prefer working directly with programmers rather than have messages related via management channels with costs plucked out of the air and relayed back.
With stakeholders I find I am talking their language and a lot of ground gets covered in a working meeting, where some fixes are done during that meeting with anything requiring more time speced out. With management intermediaries they think everyone thinks like how they think so they can't imagine that it would be safe to have the programmer talk in a mix of trade jargon with a client. Usually this is part of the gig, many people make a cushty living coasting between meetings. What do we do so as to get on with the job but not enable this coasting that goes on with freeloading management types?