shut down doesn't shut down

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by namsila » Sun, 06 May 2007 10:18:46


When I select any of the options under "turn off computer", whether be
it restart or shut down, or just selecting "log off" from Start menu,
nothing happens the first time I make that selection. But if I select
it a second time immediately afterwards, it works fine. Any idea?
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Nobod » Sun, 06 May 2007 10:54:08

You can probably run sfc /scannow from command line to check for errors (Line 11 below)

It is good to do all these on a regular basis.
General Maintenance.

1. Do a Custom Update every once in a while to update items that are not "Critical"
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
2. Run Disk Cleanup
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
3. Remove Windows Update Unintall to free up hard disk space (*Not necessary unless you are running out of disk space*)
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
4. Clean Internet Explorer History, Cookies, etc.
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
5. Disk Defragmenter
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
6. Spybot
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
7. Adaware
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
8. Run your Antivirus tool or an online tool
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
9. User Profile Hive Cleanup service
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
10. Run your registry cleaner
XXXXXXXXXXXX
11. System File Checker
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
12. View Event Log for Errors
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

That should keep it optimized and eliminate most problems.

HTH,

 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Rock » Sun, 06 May 2007 12:24:03

"namsilat" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote

Shutdown troubleshooter
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

http://www.yqcomputer.com/
Resources to help troubleshoot shutdown problems in Windows XP
--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Newbie Cod » Sun, 06 May 2007 15:54:14

Nobody,

Just looking through your unnecessary links you posted

Example:

No. 1 - Sign up for the Windows Update monthly security fixes & get notified
1 day before Automatic Update has them
( http://www.yqcomputer.com/ )

No. 4 - why? Just open IE | Tools | Internet Options...

No. 6 - Spybot: Developers site: http://www.yqcomputer.com/

No. 9 - Ok for enterprise running roaming AD profiles but useless for the
home user

No. 10 - would never recommend using a reg cleaner

--
Newbie Coder
(It's just a name)






You can probably run sfc /scannow from command line to check for errors
(Line 11 below)

It is good to do all these on a regular basis.
General Maintenance.

1. Do a Custom Update every once in a while to update items that are not
"Critical"
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
2. Run Disk Cleanup
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
3. Remove Windows Update Unintall to free up hard disk space (*Not necessary
unless you are running out of disk space*)
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
4. Clean Internet Explorer History, Cookies, etc.
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
5. Disk Defragmenter
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
6. Spybot
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
7. Adaware
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
8. Run your Antivirus tool or an online tool
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
9. User Profile Hive Cleanup service
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
10. Run your registry cleaner
XXXXXXXXXXXX
11. System File Checker
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
12. View Event Log for Errors
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

That should keep it optimized and eliminate most problems.

HTH,
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Nobod » Mon, 07 May 2007 08:01:53

ewbie,

Those are the critical updates.
They aren't the other updates, such as drivers and other such fixes.

I wanted to reference a web page. Not just my words, but others.
Plus it has instructions and pictures.

I just picked the first site that showed Spybot.
The one you posted is probably better.

It has been posted on numerous websites as a tool that fixes problems,
so I thought I would mention it. I don't beleive it can hurt to try it.
I may just fix the problem.

That is your opinion.
They make reg cleaners for reason. I don't know why you are so against the grain,
but other people use them and it does fix errors and improves system performance.
There is also a page defragging tool that I stumbled upon. You could argue that
you never need to defrag your hard drive, but it does improve system performance.

P.S. the list probably could be improved.
I just kind of threw it together.
Thanks for your help.

Regards,
"Newbie Coder" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Rock » Mon, 07 May 2007 14:54:55

"Nobody" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote

<snip>





I wouldn't say he is "against the grain". This certainly is my and his
opinion which is shared by many knowledgable techs. There is no advantage
to running a registry cleaner, but there is a significant downside to it.
You are at the mercy of what the cleaner decides is not needed. The problem
is that they can remove something that is later needed, then the OP runs
into unexplained problems and many times is removed sufficiently from the
cause that they dont' realize what did them in.

There has never been any objective proof showing they are of value. Of
course there is a reason for them, to separate the unknowing folks from
their money. I call them snake oil products just like free memory
optimizers.

We regularly get posts in here where problems are created by their use, but
rarely get a post where it helped. The only way to use one is when you are
trying to troubleshoot a problem with a certain software. Run it to see
what it finds, and then research to see if anthing is related to the issue
at hand. Based on that research manually make the necessary changes, always
making sure you created a system restore point first and made a backup copy
of any reg keys you plan to change. Even better use ERUNT to make a
complete backup of the registry on a regular basis.

There are hundreds of thousands of entries in the registry. Removing a
handful that are orphaned is highly unlikely to help, particularly since
unused entries don't in and of themself cause problems, but removing the
wrong entry can cause lots of problems.

Don't use one.

Here is one on going thread discussion about the use of registry cleaners.
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

Defragging a hard drive is of less importance than people place on it. Yes
it can make a significant difference in some situations and when the drive
starts to fill, but rarely does it make a difference to the average user.
That is why 3rd party defraggers are not needed for most folks. The in
built one works fine, defragging once a month or so. Rarely does it have a
significant impact. As drives get larger and faster, and as memory
management improves, for example with Vista, where there are significant
improvements in memory management, defragging has an even smaller impact.

<snip>

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Nobod » Mon, 07 May 2007 17:32:22

Rock,

That is your opinion. It doesn't not mean it is the truth, because it isn't.
They are built for a reason.
The reason? They improve system performance and resolve errors.

To state that Registry cleaning is a bad thing to do is erroneous.
To state that Hard Drive Defragging does nothing to improve system performance is erroneous.
To state that Free Memory Optimizers are worthless is erroneous.

I don't care to involve myself in arguing about whether or not techs think
Registry Cleaners work or not.

Any tool can be constructive or destructive depending on how they are used.
Bottom Line. Get cheap tools, Get cheap results.
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Rock » Mon, 07 May 2007 19:21:15

Nobody" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote
Rock,



Yes it is my opinion, but it's one held by, I would say, the vast majority
of knowledgable computer folks.


The primary reason is to glean money from the gullible. It's marketing,
plain and simple.


How so? What exactly is "cleaning" going to accomplish? How can removing
100 unused entries that are not otherwise problematic - not wrong, not
blocking an install, just unused - from a database of hundreds of thousands,
have a signficant impact?

There is no objective evidence that registry cleaners do any good but there
is much evidence to the contrary. Orphaned entries do not as a rule cause
problems. A "bad" entry, whether orpahaned or not, can be problematic but
there is no value to relying on an automated registry cleaner to remove it.
Assuming it even spots the problem, it can also remove useful entries. And
there in lies the problem. Removing the wrong ones can cause significant
problems.


I didn't say it doesn't. "Defragging a hard drive is of less importance
than people place on it." I said it depends on the circumstances. In some
cases it can make a big difference, data base applications, signficant drive
access, etc. But for the average user, the need is overblown. And as
drives get bigger and faster with correspondingly greater amount of free
space the impact is even less. Yes one should should defrag occasionally,
but it's not going to gain you a whole lot unless the drive get's overly
filled, which will cause other problems.

As opposed to registry cleaners, regularly running a defragmenter will not
cause any harm (except for the unusual occasion when the random glitch
occurs which you can never predict; this is were backups and drive imaging
come in.) but it doesn't do much good running it all the time (daily for
example). Like I said before, for most users once a month is probably fine.


Those are even worse snake oil programs than registry cleaners, if that's
possible. They do no good. Free RAM is wasted RAM. That is why you see in
Vista, for example, significant improvements in the memory management
functions to utilize as much of the RAM as possible for caching files and
programs. In Vista it's not uncommon in Task Manger under the Performance
tab to see close to 0 free RAM. That is a good thing. The RAM is put to
use caching items based on past use patterns, so the affected programs start
faster, but the memory is available if a program needs it.

Free Memory utilties are an absolute waste.

In the book "Microsoft Windows Internals" 4th Edition (2005) Mark
Russinovich, one of the founders of Winternals / SystemInternals (They were
bought out by MS in July, 2006 I believe. Mark now works for MS; he
certainly knows the workings of Windows inside and out and is highly
regarded in the Windows field. This edition of the book was published a
year before the buy out.) there is a section called "RAM Optimizers: Fact or
Fiction". Over several pages he dubunks the myth of these programs. It's
fiction. Among the things he writes:

"While gaining more available memory might seem like a good think, it isn't.
As RAM optimizers force the available memory counter up, they force other
processes' data and code out of memory... The performance degradation can
be severe on servers ...."

"Some vendors make additional claims for their RAM-optimizer products.
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Nobod » Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:15

ock,

I am speaking from experience, not from opinions or heresay or what somebody posted on some newsgroup.
I have used Memory Defraggers and Registry Cleaners/Optimizers for approx 10 years.
I have always noticed a drastic improvement in system performance and the elimination of errors.
It is not just orphaned entries, but other entries that refrence null or invalid entries.

I have used other registry cleaners and found that the ones that are highly rated
are highly rated for a good reason.

My experience with the Ram defrag goes like this.
When ram drops below a certain level, it starts to access the hard drive. (The paging process.)
The tool runs, recovers and defrags, which not only stops using the hard drive,
it can now accesses a contigous area memory.

You mentioned Vista has improved memory management.
Why did they bother doing that, when this Mark guy and you both say that it is equivalent to "Snake Oil"?

This Mark guy that you speak of works for MS, so naturally he will degrade
other products. His is the best naturally. Java is out. C# is in.
Why does Microsoft start building a tool, then just stop as they did with thier registry cleaner?

That don't matter. Fragmentation is always a factor. It is unavoidable.
Besides, as processors and disk space grow, so does program and file size.
They seem to be proportional.


"Rock" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Rock » Tue, 08 May 2007 10:10:37

Nobody" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote







The registry cleaner was developed for the Win95/98 family, not for NT. It
was removed because it had problems. That's why it wasn't supported. There
is a huge difference under the hood between Win95/98 and the NT family of
OS's.



In the real world, what the user experiences for must users, the impact of
fragmenation on performance is small. Additionally fragmentation's impact
on performance decreases as the amount of free space and speed of the drives
increases. Efficient memory management with caching of data further cuts
down on it's impact. It doesn't matter how long it takes to read the data
from the drive if it's already cached in memory when it's needed, which
won't happen, by the way if you run one of those memory optimizers you
recommend. Besides doing nothing on their own, they actualy make the effect
of fragmentation even worse because the data has to be read from the drive
more often.


"Rock" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote


You just don't understand nor do you want to learn, do you? Vista improved
on XP by utilizing memory even more efficiently cutting down even more on
the amount of free RAM. The principle is free RAM is wasted RAM. Memory
optimizers are useless in XP and even more so in Vista because of the
improved management.

Mark Russinovich is one of the most highly regarded people in the world of
Windows. Did you not even do a bit of research on him? Have you never
heard of him and of the company he founded - Winternals/SystemInternals?
Haven't you heard of Process Explorer, FileMon, RegMon, DiskMon, PortMon,
Autoruns, Process Monitor, PsExec, Rootkit Revealer, and all the other
SysInternals Utilities that are used by so many people on systems in the NT
family? He wrote all those. And those are just the free tools. All this
was done well before he ever hooked up with MS.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/default.mspx

That memory optimizers is bunk has nothing to do with his current
affiliation with MS.

Memory Optimizers are snake oil, pure and simple. Registry Cleaners are
dangerous for the unknowledgeable. Please do some don't be irresponsible
and promote their use.

It's pretty clear this thread has come to an end. I hope you are willing to
take a closer look at this issue.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Nobod » Tue, 08 May 2007 16:28:02

ock,

Have you ever used a Memory Optimizer or a Registry Cleaner?
Are you just inclined to denounce them without even trying and just posting something somebody else said?
http://lifehacker.com/software/ram/download-of-the-day-freeram-xp-pro-181724.php

If you have used a Memory Optimizer and you do not notice any significance, then you can make
claims based on your own judgement, instead of what you think will happen, or what somebody else say's
will happen or what people say in a newsgroup.

I think this is pretty much a useless argument.
If you have used them and find they don't work for you, then fine. I would respect that.
As for me and others who use them, we find them to improve performance and eliminate errors
and we are still going to use them.


"Rock" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message news:% XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Rock » Wed, 09 May 2007 17:24:34

Nobody" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote

Rock,

Have you ever used a Memory Optimizer or a Registry Cleaner?
Are you just inclined to denounce them without even trying and just posting
something somebody else said?
http://lifehacker.com/software/ram/download-of-the-day-freeram-xp-pro-181724.php

If you have used a Memory Optimizer and you do not notice any significance,
then you can make
claims based on your own judgement, instead of what you think will happen,
or what somebody else say's
will happen or what people say in a newsgroup.

I think this is pretty much a useless argument.
If you have used them and find they don't work for you, then fine. I would
respect that.
As for me and others who use them, we find them to improve performance and
eliminate errors
and we are still going to use them.


"Rock" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news:% XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

Yes I used memory optimizers years ago when I was gullible. They are
absolute snake oil. And all it takes is a modicum of knowledge and thought
to realize it.

As to registry cleaners, yes I have used them, I know what they do. Have I
used every one? Certainly not, and I don't need to. Knowledge of how the
registry works dispels their need. Their benefit is minimal, but the
potential downside is great. Do problems occur every time one is used?
Certainly not. Do problems occur from their use? Absolutely yes. Just the
regularity of posts in this newsgroup about this fact shows it to be so in
practice.

I have explained several times the only way a reg cleaner should be used.
It should never be used to do it's thing automatically, there is no need for
routine cleaning of the registry, and it should never be recommended to an
unknowledgeable, inexperienced user. That is irresponsible.

On the common sense side, one should catch a clue by the lack of objective
sources documenting the efficacy of memory optimizers and registry cleaners,
and the number and quality of knowledgeable people who decry them for what
they are. The majority of those touting these tools are the makers of
them. That should tell you something.

This XP system has run for almost 5 years without a reinstall, using it in a
variety of multiboot configurations to Beta test certain software including
Vista throughout the Tech Beta program. It runs just as good now as it ever
has, without the benefit of a memory optimizer or a registry cleaner.

The key is to use good hardware and software, and to learn how to properly
maintain and protect the system without those either useless or potentially
harmful products. That and a backup/recovery solution utilizing a drive
imaging program to image the system to an external drive is a much more
useful way to spend one's time and money.

You're correct, this thread has reached an end.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by no » Thu, 10 May 2007 10:13:26


When I select any of the options under "turn off computer",
whether be
Start menu,
select

I'm getting exactly the same thing!

Except mine is on a brand new clean install of XP. I wonder if it's
something to do with the chipset. I'm using a Gigabyte 965P-DQ6 mobo
and an Intel Core2Duo E6600.

Can you post your h/w please.
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by namsila » Sun, 13 May 2007 08:43:22

I don't think the problem is a hardware problem, at least not in my
case. It only started happening recently, and I have had the same
computer machine for years.
 
 
 

shut down doesn't shut down

Post by Rock » Sun, 13 May 2007 10:08:37

"namsilat" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote




I don't know whether hardware is your problem, but your comment doesn't
really support effective troubleshooting. How do you know some hardware
component isn't failing? Nothing lasts forever. Just because you had it
for five years, or it was working 5 minutes ago doesn't mean there is not a
problem now.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]