Oh God not again
-
My computer refuses to shut
updown. I click start menu, power, shutdown, the shutdown screen appears, then blackness, then back to desktop. I've tried several times and it's the same. For fuck's sake we've been through this already last year! Why are you doing this to me again!Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.
-
@Gąska Microsoft is trying to make up for the times previous Windows versions did the opposite.
-
@Gąska 'When we tell you to shut down, you fucking shut down. You don't like it so much when you can't shut down anymore, do you?'
-
@Gąska Considering the extra hoops that you have to run through to make Windows shut down properly nowadays, instead of their hibernation bollocks, maybe this is just the logical next step?
-
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
@Gąska Considering the extra hoops that you have to run through to make Windows shut down properly nowadays, instead of their hibernation bollocks, maybe this is just the logical next step?
Speaking of which, try turning that (fast startup) off.
-
@Gąska said in Oh God not again:
My computer refuses to shut
updown. I click start menu, power, shutdown, the shutdown screen appears, then blackness, then back to desktop. I've tried several times and it's the same. For fuck's sake we've been through this already last year! Why are you doing this to me again!Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.
Check your list of running tasks. You may find something in there that replies "No" when it receives the WM_QUERYENDSESSION message. (That's not the only possible reason for it, but the current shutdown process, especially in Win 10 FCU or later, is a tangled mess, and I have inadequate knowledge of what to look for.)
-
Try BIOS/UEFI settings -> restore to default. My ASrock motherboard gets all sorts of glitches like that if I touch some of the settings.
-
@Deadfast Those are the extra hoops I am talking about. I have to disable that misfeature to make Windows behave as expected.
-
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
@Gąska Considering the extra hoops that you have to run through to make Windows shut down properly nowadays, instead of their hibernation bollocks, maybe this is just the logical next step?
To neuter the "bookmarking of applications" part of the current hiberdown shutnation stuff, click the desktop and press Alt+F4. This will give you a "classic" shutdown dialog box in the centre of the screen, and it shuts down the session without bookmarking the applications. It will still drop into Fast Startup's habit of hibernating the kernel, but at least it toasts the application states.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic I shut off hibernation completely, which also has the side effect of making Windows unable to use fastboot. I never use regular hibernation anyway. The bookmarking of applications is still stupid however and a minor annoyance. I wish Windows could go the macOS route and ask on shutdown instead.
-
@Deadfast said in Oh God not again:
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
@Gąska Considering the extra hoops that you have to run through to make Windows shut down properly nowadays, instead of their hibernation bollocks, maybe this is just the logical next step?
Speaking of which, try turning that (fast startup) off.
But I like fast startup. Besides, restart instead of shutdown bypasses it, and then I can shut it down with power button before it boots back. And the issue seems to have been one time occurrence this time.
-
@Gąska Talking about this, Chrome now do "helpfully" try to save the login state of websites across browser shutdowns.
So it happens that one of the website that I frequently visit reboots everyday and loses the session. Whenever I selected the website in Chrome, it now always redirect me to invalid session state error page instead of normal front page where I can logon.
As there anyway to tell Chrome not to save state for that website, or to turn this feature off altogether if that's not possible?
-
@cheong said in Oh God not again:
As there anyway to tell Chrome not to save state for that website, or to turn this feature off altogether if that's not possible?
If you want to turn off or on various Chrome features I have found this website with the solution:
-
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
I have to disable that misfeature to make Windows behave as expected.
I expect my computer to boot quickly. I think your "Windows should boot super-slow" might be a minority expectation here.
-
@blakeyrat As I said elsewhere: I measured the time difference of fastboot vs no fastboot on my 1st gen Core i7 to be ~3s booting from a SATA2 SSD. On my next PC I will be booting from a NVMe SSD (PCIe x4), with at least an i7/Ryzen 7 or better. I expect the time difference of fastboot vs no fastboot on that setup to be fuckall.
-
@blakeyrat when given a choice between "Windows should boot quickly" and "Windows should shut down when told to shut down", any sane person would choose the latter. It's sad that Windows forces you to make that choice on some computers. But at least they give you the choice at all. If they didn't, some people would get stuck with computers that can boot up quickly but can never shut down, just like I'm stuck with a computer that needs a system restore once a week because not installing non-installable updates is not an option.
Edit: also, the difference between fast boot and not fast boot is like 4 seconds. Most people won't even notice.
-
This is almost guaranteed to turn it off.
-
@Atazhaia So if it's only a few seconds faster, therefore it's not faster at all? Is that your reality-and-logic-warping response to my statement?
Makes sense. In Bizarro World.
-
@Gąska said in Oh God not again:
when given a choice between "Windows should boot quickly" and "Windows should shut down when told to shut down", any sane person would choose the latter.
Well if your computer's broken, if that's what we're talking about, then tell me that. Sorry your computer's busted as shit.
My computer, which works correctly, does shut down when I select "shut down" from the menu. You may bow before my God-like working computer any time you like.
-
@blakeyrat said in Oh God not again:
I expect my computer to boot quickly.
That's not what Windows 10 does.
It comes back from hibernation quickly
-
@blakeyrat said in Oh God not again:
Well if your computer's broken, if that's what we're talking about, then tell me that. Sorry your computer's busted as shit.
Rule #1: If Windows doesn't work properly, you have broken hardware
-
@blakeyrat said in Oh God not again:
@Gąska said in Oh God not again:
when given a choice between "Windows should boot quickly" and "Windows should shut down when told to shut down", any sane person would choose the latter.
Well if your computer's broken, if that's what we're talking about, then tell me that. Sorry your computer's busted as shit.
How do I tell if it's computer that's busted or just the OS?
-
@Gąska said in Oh God not again:
How do I tell if it's computer that's busted or just the OS?
Boot a Linux Live on it, try shutting down.
Did it shut down properly?
If yes, then, obviously, you have broken Linux hardware
-
@blakeyrat If fast startup gives issues (even just occasionally, and apparently it is not so uncommon for it to give issues; apparently, it's also a nuisance when dual booting), while gaining a few seconds on startup, it's a shit feature. I mean, you try to shut your PC down, it doesn't shut down, @#!!%&, try again, it doesn't shut down, @#!!%&!!!1!, you reboot and power it down at POST (or whatever it is called these days). You waste maybe a minute, maybe a couple. And it also puts you in a bad mood (or maybe not, but at least you are mildly annoyed). Considering that many people also never shut down either, it's such a waste.
-
@admiral_p said in Oh God not again:
If fast startup gives issues (even just occasionally, and apparently it is not so uncommon for it to give issues; apparently, it's also a nuisance when dual booting),
Yes, it gives issues to 0.000001% of the population, therefore it should be turned off for 99.99999% of the population for whom it's a benefit YOU ARE MASTER WIZARD OF EFFICIENCY.
Look you guys can just sit here and do your "oh windoze be bad" circlejerk or whatever, I'm sick of it, I'm out.
-
@blakeyrat said in Oh God not again:
So if it's only a few seconds faster, therefore it's not faster at all? Is that your reality-and-logic-warping response to my statement?
If I were Steve Jobs maybe I would care about those 3 extra seconds, but I am not Steve Jobs so therefore I do not care. Especially since my computer takes about 30 seconds to even get to the point where it starts booting an OS so those 3 seconds really are fuckall in that context. Also, since I'm dualbooting, I can't really use FastBoot for that reason too. So not only it is pretty much pointless from a boot time perspective, it also hinders me from using my computer without issues.
-
@TimeBandit said in Oh God not again:
you have
brokenLinux hardware
-
@blakeyrat said in Oh God not again:
@admiral_p said in Oh God not again:
If fast startup gives issues (even just occasionally, and apparently it is not so uncommon for it to give issues; apparently, it's also a nuisance when dual booting),
Yes, it gives issues to 0.000001% of the population, therefore it should be turned off for 99.99999% of the population for whom it's a benefit YOU ARE MASTER WIZARD OF EFFICIENCY.
Look you guys can just sit here and do your "oh windoze be bad" circlejerk or whatever, I'm sick of it, I'm out.
This isn't an "oh windoze be bad" circlejerk. I do not care for circlejerks, I prefer to execute jerking
-
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
@blakeyrat As I said elsewhere: I measured the time difference of fastboot vs no fastboot on my 1st gen Core i7 to be ~3s booting from a SATA2 SSD. On my next PC I will be booting from a NVMe SSD (PCIe x4), with at least an i7/Ryzen 7 or better. I expect the time difference of fastboot vs no fastboot on that setup to be fuckall.
I had the same sort of "speedup, but not a very meaningful one" on my main desktop. I turned it off because of the 16 GB HIBERFIL.SYS taking up a big chunk of the available space on my boot SSD.
It does make some difference on my parents' hard drive-based machines, but they probably don't notice because they're used to turning on the computer and then getting a new cup of coffee while it boots.
-
@Gąska said in Oh God not again:
@blakeyrat when given a choice between "Windows should boot quickly" and "Windows should shut down when told to shut down", any sane person would choose the latter. It's sad that Windows forces you to make that choice on some computers. But at least they give you the choice at all. If they didn't, some people would get stuck with computers that can boot up quickly but can never shut down, just like I'm stuck with a computer that needs a system restore once a week because not installing non-installable updates is not an option.
Edit: also, the difference between fast boot and not fast boot is like 4 seconds. Most people won't even notice.
99.9% of sleep, shutdown and hibernate problems are caused by buggy firmware, and in turn those things are indirectly caused by ACPI being a bloated and terrible standard.
Windows just shuts down its processes and then asks the hardware to turn off.
-
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
@cheong said in Oh God not again:
As there anyway to tell Chrome not to save state for that website, or to turn this feature off altogether if that's not possible?
If you want to turn off or on various Chrome features I have found this website with the solution:
"Firefox". It's modified Chromium.
-
@blakeyrat said in Oh God not again:
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
I have to disable that misfeature to make Windows behave as expected.
I expect my computer to boot quickly. I think your "Windows should boot super-slow" might be a minority expectation here.
No, it's just that there's zero observable difference if you have an SSD and you may as well keep your computer regular.
-
-
-
-
@Gąska said in Oh God not again:
I click start menu, power, shutdown, the shutdown screen appears, then blackness, then back to desktop.
-
@loopback0 The Quantum update did massively improve speeds, making it render pages faster than the other browsers. Just a shame they can't put it on iPad, where they're stuck with the slow WebKit engine.
-
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
The Quantum update did massively improve speeds, making it render pages faster than the other browsers.
OK? I didn't say otherwise.
-
@SlackerD said in Oh God not again:
"Firefox". It's modified Chromium.
Are you saying that this
chromium can run on a computer without internet exporer underneath it, at all ? As
in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?That sounds preposterous to me.
If
it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling
computers without a internet exporer. This clearly is not happening, so there
must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that
internet exporer is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the
computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to
acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.Microsoft just spent
$9 billion and many years to create Edge, so it does not sound
reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence
overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive
effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money
developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to
create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and
moved to Intel and Microsoft.Its just not possible that a
freeware like the Chromium could be extended to the point where it runs
the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the
more critical parts of internet exporer. Not possible.I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.
-
@loopback0 said in Oh God not again:
@Atazhaia said in Oh God not again:
The Quantum update did massively improve speeds, making it render pages faster than the other browsers.
OK? I didn't say otherwise.
Chromium uses WebKit IIRC.
-
@pie_flavor said in Oh God not again:
Chromium uses WebKit IIRC.
It used to use WebKit.
Chromium is the base for Chrome. They forked WebKit a while ago
-
@pie_flavor Fast boot is the new regular mode. It's what hardware makers will test on. So if you don't care, keep it on.
-
@anonymous234 said in Oh God not again:
@pie_flavor Fast boot is the new regular mode. It's what hardware makers will test on. So if you don't care, keep it on.
I don't know how 'keep it on' logically follows from 'it's what hardware makers test on'. I care about rebooting the computer because that makes sure it's quick with the updates and doesn't keep any persistent issues and doesn't write any RAM to disk.
-
@anonymous234 said in Oh God not again:
@pie_flavor Fast boot is the new regular mode. It's what hardware makers will test on.
This argument doesn't make much sense. Fast Boot is based on snapshotting the result of a regular boot, and it may fallback to a regular boot if the hardware configuration changes significantly. So hardware has to work right in the regular boot mode anyways.
-
@blakeyrat said in Oh God not again:
Well if your computer's broken, if that's what we're talking about, then tell me that. Sorry your computer's busted as shit.
You know, ages ago I installed Linux on my laptop. The damned thing just refused to suspend. The screen would turn off, the fans spun down but in a second it turned itself on again. At the time I blamed Linux - its drivers in particular - but now I see I was wrong: my laptop was just busted as shit!
-
@Deadfast Damned Linux hardware!
-
@TimeBandit said in Oh God not again:
@Gąska said in Oh God not again:
How do I tell if it's computer that's busted or just the OS?
Boot a Linux Live on it, try shutting down.
Did it shut down properly?
If yes, then, obviously, you have broken Linux hardware
And if not?
-
@Deadfast Linux failing to suspend is so damn common it's practically a running joke.
And I don't blame Linux at all. Again, ACPI and hardware vendors.
-
@anonymous234 said in Oh God not again:
@Deadfast Linux failing to suspend is so damn common it's practically a running joke.
And I don't blame Linux at all. Again, ACPI and hardware vendors.
Because servers aren't supposed to suspend?
-
@topspin said in Oh God not again:
And if not?
Then your broken Linux hardware is so broken, even Linux can't use it