18
Jun
2008
If you thought of shutting down your Windows Vista faster than Windows XP, well, you could be disappointed. In fact, every now and then the new Microsoft’s operating system takes too long to shut down, causing to its users to get frustrated and angry. This little hack, very easy to apply, reduces the amount of time Windows Vista waits for a service to stop before prompting the user to stop it manually. Here is what to do:
- Click Start.
- Type Regedit in the Search Bar.
- Locate the following folder: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control]
- Change the value of this key: WaitToKillServiceTimeout by clicking on it twice.
- By default WaitToKillServiceTimeout is set at 200000 milliseconds which are 20 seconds. If you change this value Vista will shut down faster. Of course you don’t have exaggerate in lowering the value otherwise your computer could face data loss and data corruption. As a general rule you should not go lower than 4- 5 seconds.
If this hack doesn’t work for you, then you may be interested in finding out what program is affecting your Vista shutting down time. Read this article to know more.
Tags: hack, Windows Vista
Related ArticlesLatest Articles
- How to Automatically Login (Access) to Windows 8
- How to See and Read Unread, Archived and Sent Messages on Facebook
- Switch to the New Facebook Profile Layout (Timeline)
- How to Discover and Recover All Stored Passwords in your Windows Computer
.
2 Comments to “How to force Windows Vista to shut down quickly”
Leave a Comment
Users Important Words
windows 7 force shutdown - vista force shutdown - force shutdown vista - force shutdown windows 7 - force vista shutdown - force windows 7 shutdown - windows 7 always force shutdown - force shutdown windows vista -9 queries. 0.114 sec.
Best screen resolution 1280x800 or higher.
Web Talk is best viewed in Firefox.
Web Talk is best viewed in Firefox.
March 18th, 2010
200000 milliseconds is 200 seconds not 20 seconds. 20 seconds would be 20000
March 18th, 2010
Got it! I just corrected the article. Thanks for pointing the error out!