Disable the Windows Store in Windows 8 and Windows 8.1


Recommended Posts

I have been using Windows 8 for a good while now and found that I have very little use for the Windows Store. While I am a big fan of the new toast notifications for Windows Store applications and even some applications in particular (ABC News for example), it is hard to justify their usage as I do not have a touchscreen - something that would make the experience much more enjoyable.

For these reasons and others, I have decided to disable the Windows Store services and put the resources to better use. You may also wish to do the same, so I have created this little tutorial. Note that while there are already tutorials to do this on the Internet, most of them are not as thorough as this one intends to be. See the Bleeping Computer tutorial or the How-To Geek tutorial for examples of this.

Important! Export the Windows Registry keys that you decide to modify before making changes to the Windows Registry, and create a System Restore point before continuing.

Disable access to the Windows Store via Group Policy or Windows Registry Editor

For all users:

Open the Group Policy Editor (gpedit.msc) and navigate to Computer Configuration - > Administrative Templates - > Windows Components. Open the Store entry in the right-hand pane, and enable the Turn off the Store application setting.

Alternatively, open Registry Editor (regedit.exe) and navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\WindowsStore (if the WindowsStore key does not exist, create it). Create a new DWORD value in the WindowsStore key called RemoveWindowsStore. Set its value to 1.

For current user only:

Open the Group Policy Editor (gpedit.msc) and navigate to User Configuration - > Administrative Templates - > Windows Components. Open the Store entry in the right-hand pane, and enable the Turn off the Store application setting.

Alternatively, open Registry Editor and navigate to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\WindowsStore. Create a new DWORD value called RemoveWindowsStore. Set its value to 1.

Disable the Windows Store service

Open Registry Editor and navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\WSService. Select the Start value in the right-hand pane and set its value to 4.

Disable the services associated with the Windows Store and Windows Store applications

This next step is important because, as other users have mentioned, these services are known to consume valuable system resources - a situation made worse if you are no longer able to open the Windows Store (after performing the steps above).

Disable Time Broker

In Registry Editor, navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\TimeBroker. Select the Start value in the right-hand pane and set its value to 4.

Disable System Events Broker

The task scheduler has a dependency on the system events broker, disabling it is asking for problems - Joe User.

In Registry Editor, navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\SystemEventsBroker. Select the Start value in the right-hand pane and set its value to 4.

Unpin the Windows Store tile from the Windows Start screen

If the Windows Store tile is pinned to the Start screen, right click the tile and select the Unpin from Start option that appears in the application bar.

  • Like 3

Is it wise to disable the Time Broker and System Events Broker? While you might want to disable the store, I can't see why you would disable applications that register with the brokers.

 

I don't think "saving resources" is a valid reason, they are not resource hogs.

 

Edit: The task scheduler has a dependency on the system events broker, disabling it is asking for problems.

Edited by Joe User

I think this isn't so much important about resources but the ability to shut something down one doesn't want.

 

I can't think of a situation where anyone would want to disrupt the task scheduler.

This is good if you (and everyone else who ...) believe you need the extra resources.  Personally, I don't see the benefits considering today's hardware.

Is it wise to disable the Time Broker and System Events Broker? While you might want to disable the store, I can't see why you would disable applications that register with the brokers.

 

I don't think "saving resources" is a valid reason, they are not resource hogs.

 

Edit: The task scheduler has a dependency on the system events broker, disabling it is asking for problems.

The whole idea of this tutorial is that if a user does not use the Windows Store or Windows Store applications, they can be completely disabled. If a user still wishes to use Windows Store applications, he or she should not disable the Windows Store, Time Broker or System Events Broker services (something that I thought would be obvious due to the description of these services in Windows 8).

I mentioned resource usage only because several users have reported that Time Broker and System Events Broker spike the CPU or use large amounts of memory. Granted, this only happens if one uses the Windows Store or its applications, but if a user does not use the new Windows 8 application infrastructure, why leave these services running at all?

With that said, thank you very much for alerting me (and the readers of this topic) to the potential dangers of disabling System Events Broker. Would a moderator include this information in the original post, and give credit to Joe User for this?

With that said, thank you very much for alerting me (and the readers of this topic) to the potential dangers of disabling System Events Broker. Would a moderator include this information in the original post, and give credit to Joe User for this?

 

Modified as requested.

After testing, I would like to let you know that disabling the System Events Broker will disable the Task Scheduler completely.

 

DO NOT DO THIS!

 

There are hundreds of applications that rely on the Task Scheduler in Windows 8.

 

If you want to remove the dependency, you can hack the registry to do it, but seriously, this is reckless advice. The average user who thinks they are optimizing their system is going to wind up with a broken Windows update, a broken Windows Media center, optimization and cleanup tasks not being run, and in the long term an unstable system.

Ugh, do not do any of this unless you really want to hork up your system.

 

I have been using Windows 8 for a good while now and found that I have very little use for the Windows Store. While I am a big fan of the new toast notifications for Windows Store applications and even some applications in particular (ABC News for example), it is hard to justify their usage as I do not have a touchscreen - something that would make the experience much more enjoyable.

 

What does having a touchscreen have to do with the Store?

Ugh, do not do any of this unless you really want to hork up your system.

What does having a touchscreen have to do with the Store?

Using group policy to disable the store will hurt the system? If so, why is this option included in the OS?

Ugh, do not do any of this unless you really want to hork up your system.

 

 

What does having a touchscreen have to do with the Store?

 

Agreed completely.  If you don't want to use the store; don't. An allocated resource is not a used resource so not using it or any Modern apps isn't going to use any of your precious CPU time or RAM (unused RAM is wasted RAM).

 

Screwing around with services when you don't know what else they're used for is just asking for trouble.  Disabling the store itself in group policy is likely harmless (and would be there for enterprise reasons), but killing the brokers will just cause you grief.

This is very good. I will use it because its very good. I never wanted the Microsoft Store, and I'm not sure why Microsoft included it on everyone's computer. This is a very good trick to disable the nasty old Microsoft Store that Microsoft forced on everyone. I will use it to disable my Store on my Windows 8 computer. It is a horrible Store, and I'm not sure why Microsoft forced it on everyone.

 

Regards,

Andrea Borman

I think he was referring to the second part.

Thanks. I was thinking the same, but was wondering why he didn't specifically limit the scope of his warning to exclude the official deactivation method.

This is very good. I will use it because its very good. I never wanted the Microsoft Store, and I'm not sure why Microsoft included it on everyone's computer. This is a very good trick to disable the nasty old Microsoft Store that Microsoft forced on everyone. I will use it to disable my Store on my Windows 8 computer. It is a horrible Store, and I'm not sure why Microsoft forced it on everyone.

 

Regards,

Andrea Borman

...

 

No... please...

This is very good. I will use it because its very good. I never wanted the Microsoft Store, and I'm not sure why Microsoft included it on everyone's computer. This is a very good trick to disable the nasty old Microsoft Store that Microsoft forced on everyone. I will use it to disable my Store on my Windows 8 computer. It is a horrible Store, and I'm not sure why Microsoft forced it on everyone.

 

Regards,

Andrea Borman

 

How was it "forced on everyone"? You don't have to use it. You can still install traditional desktop software in exactly the same way as before. This is just another way to get software, not the only one.

How was it "forced on everyone"? You don't have to use it. You can still install traditional desktop software in exactly the same way as before. This is just another way to get software, not the only one.

it was a joke

 

Andrea Borman was a user that got banned a long time ago due to being annoying to everyone and obsessing about making windows act like 98

 

I'm surprised you don't remember her :p

it was a joke

 

Andrea Borman was a user that got banned a long time ago due to being annoying to everyone and obsessing about making windows act like 98

 

I'm surprised you don't remember her :p

 

<Gilda Radner> Nevermind . . . . </GR>  :)

it was a joke

 

Andrea Borman was a user that got banned a long time ago due to being annoying to everyone and obsessing about making windows act like 98

 

I'm surprised you don't remember her :p

Im actually worried it isnt a joke:

Member Since 17 Feb 2014

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!