Suspend users programs when screen is locked and other user logs in
I like I can lock the screen and/or suspend windows 10, and the programs and windows are where I left them when I log in again.
But when my SO logs in, my programs also starts, taking power, and most annoyingly, my spotify or youtube can start playing, and the alert noises from facebook etc is also heard.
Is there a windows setting or other magic which can suspend the users program, when another user is using the pc?
It does make sense if I was doing rendering or other cpu-intensive stuff, that I am able to let the programs run in the background and let others use the machine, but it should be possible to disable it too.
TL;DR: Only allow the user with an active to have running programs; suspend the other users programs.
windows-10 multiple-users
add a comment |
I like I can lock the screen and/or suspend windows 10, and the programs and windows are where I left them when I log in again.
But when my SO logs in, my programs also starts, taking power, and most annoyingly, my spotify or youtube can start playing, and the alert noises from facebook etc is also heard.
Is there a windows setting or other magic which can suspend the users program, when another user is using the pc?
It does make sense if I was doing rendering or other cpu-intensive stuff, that I am able to let the programs run in the background and let others use the machine, but it should be possible to disable it too.
TL;DR: Only allow the user with an active to have running programs; suspend the other users programs.
windows-10 multiple-users
What you want isn't possible, unless you disable the ability to switch users, and only allow them to log out. How you switch users is a kernel function and cannot be changed.
– Ramhound
Jan 16 at 21:07
I don't see why this is downvoted. I think it would be relatively easy to not give the non-active users processes any timeslices. Then, if needed. non-running programs memory would be swapped to the disk.
– Lenne
Jan 17 at 14:44
You would have to ask the users who downvoted your question to explain their vote. Which the reason, commenting about downvotes not being explained, is a fruitless endeavor.
– Ramhound
Jan 17 at 14:53
add a comment |
I like I can lock the screen and/or suspend windows 10, and the programs and windows are where I left them when I log in again.
But when my SO logs in, my programs also starts, taking power, and most annoyingly, my spotify or youtube can start playing, and the alert noises from facebook etc is also heard.
Is there a windows setting or other magic which can suspend the users program, when another user is using the pc?
It does make sense if I was doing rendering or other cpu-intensive stuff, that I am able to let the programs run in the background and let others use the machine, but it should be possible to disable it too.
TL;DR: Only allow the user with an active to have running programs; suspend the other users programs.
windows-10 multiple-users
I like I can lock the screen and/or suspend windows 10, and the programs and windows are where I left them when I log in again.
But when my SO logs in, my programs also starts, taking power, and most annoyingly, my spotify or youtube can start playing, and the alert noises from facebook etc is also heard.
Is there a windows setting or other magic which can suspend the users program, when another user is using the pc?
It does make sense if I was doing rendering or other cpu-intensive stuff, that I am able to let the programs run in the background and let others use the machine, but it should be possible to disable it too.
TL;DR: Only allow the user with an active to have running programs; suspend the other users programs.
windows-10 multiple-users
windows-10 multiple-users
asked Jan 16 at 19:46
LenneLenne
1,099715
1,099715
What you want isn't possible, unless you disable the ability to switch users, and only allow them to log out. How you switch users is a kernel function and cannot be changed.
– Ramhound
Jan 16 at 21:07
I don't see why this is downvoted. I think it would be relatively easy to not give the non-active users processes any timeslices. Then, if needed. non-running programs memory would be swapped to the disk.
– Lenne
Jan 17 at 14:44
You would have to ask the users who downvoted your question to explain their vote. Which the reason, commenting about downvotes not being explained, is a fruitless endeavor.
– Ramhound
Jan 17 at 14:53
add a comment |
What you want isn't possible, unless you disable the ability to switch users, and only allow them to log out. How you switch users is a kernel function and cannot be changed.
– Ramhound
Jan 16 at 21:07
I don't see why this is downvoted. I think it would be relatively easy to not give the non-active users processes any timeslices. Then, if needed. non-running programs memory would be swapped to the disk.
– Lenne
Jan 17 at 14:44
You would have to ask the users who downvoted your question to explain their vote. Which the reason, commenting about downvotes not being explained, is a fruitless endeavor.
– Ramhound
Jan 17 at 14:53
What you want isn't possible, unless you disable the ability to switch users, and only allow them to log out. How you switch users is a kernel function and cannot be changed.
– Ramhound
Jan 16 at 21:07
What you want isn't possible, unless you disable the ability to switch users, and only allow them to log out. How you switch users is a kernel function and cannot be changed.
– Ramhound
Jan 16 at 21:07
I don't see why this is downvoted. I think it would be relatively easy to not give the non-active users processes any timeslices. Then, if needed. non-running programs memory would be swapped to the disk.
– Lenne
Jan 17 at 14:44
I don't see why this is downvoted. I think it would be relatively easy to not give the non-active users processes any timeslices. Then, if needed. non-running programs memory would be swapped to the disk.
– Lenne
Jan 17 at 14:44
You would have to ask the users who downvoted your question to explain their vote. Which the reason, commenting about downvotes not being explained, is a fruitless endeavor.
– Ramhound
Jan 17 at 14:53
You would have to ask the users who downvoted your question to explain their vote. Which the reason, commenting about downvotes not being explained, is a fruitless endeavor.
– Ramhound
Jan 17 at 14:53
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1395090%2fsuspend-users-programs-when-screen-is-locked-and-other-user-logs-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1395090%2fsuspend-users-programs-when-screen-is-locked-and-other-user-logs-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What you want isn't possible, unless you disable the ability to switch users, and only allow them to log out. How you switch users is a kernel function and cannot be changed.
– Ramhound
Jan 16 at 21:07
I don't see why this is downvoted. I think it would be relatively easy to not give the non-active users processes any timeslices. Then, if needed. non-running programs memory would be swapped to the disk.
– Lenne
Jan 17 at 14:44
You would have to ask the users who downvoted your question to explain their vote. Which the reason, commenting about downvotes not being explained, is a fruitless endeavor.
– Ramhound
Jan 17 at 14:53