simple question

[wim]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Why does XP bother to ask the user whether is wants to end a 'dead' program
now when a positive answer to such a request does not appear to provoke any
response from the system corresponding with this particular action?

(in other words, when I say 'End now', I want it to end _NOW_ and not at a
time when XP thinks it's more convenient). Always makes me wonder just who
is in control, me or the machine 🙁

Wim

 

[Ras]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

You don't give any specs so just have to guess but I'd say you have other
things going on. Either you have spyware that has slowed your system or you
may need more memory. When you hit the 'End Now" button it should close
fairly quickly. It sounds to me like you have too much happening at once.
I would guess the memory problem would take care of this.


"Wim" <wim@dalawddjeezus.com> wrote in message
news:432ead1e$0$314$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
> Why does XP bother to ask the user whether is wants to end a 'dead'
> program now when a positive answer to such a request does not appear to
> provoke any response from the system corresponding with this particular
> action?
>
> (in other words, when I say 'End now', I want it to end _NOW_ and not at a
> time when XP thinks it's more convenient). Always makes me wonder just who
> is in control, me or the machine 🙁
>
> Wim
>

 

[wim]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

"ras" <ras_nb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eZIfDnRvFHA.3100@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You don't give any specs so just have to guess but I'd say you have other
> things going on. Either you have spyware that has slowed your system or
> you may need more memory. When you hit the 'End Now" button it should
> close fairly quickly.

I'm not expecting 'fairly quickly', I'm expecting 'now' when it (no I
actually) says 'now'. I guess what I'm looking for is a XP-equivalent to
kill -9

But thanks for your answer anyway

Wim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

XP is isolating the program from everything such no collateral damage will
occur..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"Wim" <wim@dalawddjeezus.com> wrote in message
news:432ebcf7$0$314$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
>
> "ras" <ras_nb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eZIfDnRvFHA.3100@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You don't give any specs so just have to guess but I'd say you have other
>> things going on. Either you have spyware that has slowed your system or
>> you may need more memory. When you hit the 'End Now" button it should
>> close fairly quickly.
>
> I'm not expecting 'fairly quickly', I'm expecting 'now' when it (no I
> actually) says 'now'. I guess what I'm looking for is a XP-equivalent to
> kill -9
>
> But thanks for your answer anyway
>
> Wim
>

 

[wim]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ui%23QwLSvFHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> XP is isolating the program from everything such no collateral damage will
> occur..

Don't understand I'm afraid. Why isn't the program 'isolated' from
'everything' to begin with?

(for example, when IE dies on me, and starts (!) shutting down, it also
impacts the performance of other programs (like my dvd-player))

Wim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Wim

Very few programs work in perfect isolation, and all require various
elements of Windows in order to perform that tasks asked.. an OS is not just
a pretty desktop.. it contains many of the background services that enable
an application to do whatever it does.. where DOS brought all of the
components together such that they were flying in loose formation, Windows
has attempted over the years to integrate each component much more tightly
and make better use of each component..

So, when using a grinding wheel, would you expect to be able to change a
worn one while 'on the fly'?.. hardly, as you have to wait for it to stop
and cool a little maybe.. OK, so you can see no obvious working parts in a
computer, but there is still a winding down process.. I don't know if you
ever ran Win 9x/ME, but if you did, you would know that a crashed
application generally resulted in a crashed OS.. XP may sometimes take a few
to recover and dump the offending app, but that is surely better than losing
everything as one would during the inevitable Win 9x reboot..

No, it is not always foolproof either.. if XP is hit hard enough, it will
fall, but it takes a whole bunch more to bring it down.. give the system a
chance..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"Wim" <wim@dalawddjeezus.com> wrote in message
news:432ee3ee$0$313$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ui%23QwLSvFHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> XP is isolating the program from everything such no collateral damage
>> will occur..
>
> Don't understand I'm afraid. Why isn't the program 'isolated' from
> 'everything' to begin with?
>
> (for example, when IE dies on me, and starts (!) shutting down, it also
> impacts the performance of other programs (like my dvd-player))
>
> Wim
>