Maybe it is just me, but despite being generally careful I do sometimes invoke the Roon shut down when I should be using that top left arrow.
A check box asking if we really do intend shutting down Roon would be helpful to avoid this situation. No, it is not vital or catastophic but, IMHO, would make Roon a bit more user friendly.
Perhaps the workaround is to put Roon into Fullscreen mode, and then that top right X is not visibleā¦ Fullscreen mode: F11, or the four arrows icon at the top of the Roon menu dropdownā¦
I agree. This would be a welcome feature.
Fullscreen mode would not be any good for me as the problem occurs while editing and I often need access to other programs, the net etc.
I just use Alt-Tab to switch between multiple applicationsā¦
Please, Iām begging the developers now, not another msgbox that asks if I really want to do something. Yes, dag nabit, I want to do that, thatās why I pushed the bloody button. Thatās another thing I like about Roon, in that it generally avoids such nonsense.
Constantly asking for reassurance comes from the old days when people were unfamiliar with computers and, now, should be put on the ash heap of history.
Where is this this shutdown button? Are you working in the Roon core itself?
I never do. So my answer to this problem would be to work in a Roon remote, that way if you shut down anything it is just the remote, not the Core itself.
If you want to use only one computer, you can still run a remote next to the Core, better yet run the Core as Roonserver.
(Funny, I have the opposite problem, it is difficult to shut down Roon on those rare occasions when I want to.)
heās talking about the X in Roon titlebar to close the app ā the standard close window/app button (alt-f4)
Yeah, what I thought.
Thatās why I suggested not using the Roon app itself, but a remote.
Oh dear - sort of a storm in a teacup??
Guys, really now, what is the BIG objection? It you do not ever shut Roon down (as is usually the case here), that extra check box will be of absolutely no concern. If you do intend to close it, one extra click - is that such a huge irritation?
But it is perplexing for some of us to inadvertently close it, and yes, the big Windows X top right . So how about a bit of patience with dummies like me who find they so sometimes (not often) accidentally close it? Come on, do you seriously want me to abandon this powerful PC for an iPad to avoid doing that?
And, bottom line, are you claiming Roon is so streamlined and without hassles that such a check box ruins the program and its functionality? We all know Roon has many areas open for improvement. It is a brilliant piece of work so far but ā¦
Sorry, but I fail to see your complaints as valid weighing up the advantages to some of us vs the irritation to others.
Why canāt you just pay attention to what youāre doing? Have some respect for Roon developersā time and donāt bug them with petty requests.
Why not have a settings āoptionā for a āConfirm Shutdownā of the program. Then those that want it can turn it on and those that do not can leave it off. I realise it still takes developersā time away from other things, but it should be simple to implement.
I kind of like Adobeās global solution for this: a ādonāt ask me againā option when an āare you sure you really want toā¦ā dialog comes up. (Of course, this necessitates a āreset all warning dialogsā button somewhere in the settings.)
(My solution to the OPās problem would be to use an OS with a better designed UI.) :snarky:
In reply to Slim: Gee, so we are not really supposed to make suggestions which could make the program more user friendly for others if people like yourself do not need them? So Roon should really only be used by clever, alert users who do not need such check boxes that are elsewhere in Roon and other programs and are a sign of careful design?
Looks like one of us has misunderstood the philosophy behind Roon where developers welcomed suggestions to improve usage of the program for everyone, and not for just a few clever PC experts.
Yeah, this is what I do (so clearly, itās an excellent suggestion) ā I run Roon Server on my server computer and also have Roon installed as a remote on the same machine (just in case ā itās not normally running).
The advantage to this setup is that if youāre messing with stuff and you accidentally quit out of Roon, the remote will quit, but the music will continue to play ā¦ same as if you were using Roon as a remote on a different computer. Another advantage is that Roon Server uses a lot fewer resources than Roon, so if your server machine doesnāt have a lot of grunt to spare, you can do things you might not otherwise be able to do (think DSP).
(Sorry about the snark above. Just having a little fun.)
I tend to accidentally shutdown Roon when viewing album art full screen, as thereās an X to shut down non-maximisied art but not for full screen so I make the mistake of closing the program itself, wich engenders a few āDoh!ā moments 
Are there any specific occasions which cause you to shut it down (as per my example)? Perhaps if these occasions can be defined then specific work arounds can be established?
Thanks for your interest Sallah but there is not really any clear cut specific occasion to work around.
Iām spending hundreds of hours massaging this big library of classical music (and there is a lot of work there necessary because Roon corrupts merged files when they are broken up) and I can go for days without shutting it down accidentally. Then, out of the blue, instead of using the top left arrow, Iāll hit the right top X. Then of course, I have to wait for it to load up again before doing anything more - frustrating. My fault I know, but using the top right X to exit what you are doing is second nature and sort of happens automatically.
A check box would be a simple, unobtrusive way of preventing an accidental shut down. Iāve been genuinly surprised at the opposition (and nastiness by some), this suggestion has generated as it really should not be a big issue or hard to implement. Check boxes are already in Roon and used extensively in other programs to avoid accidental deletions/changes so opposition to one where suggested is difficult to understand.
Very obviously Iām not the only one affected by this, something I would think points to a weakness in the program that should be fixed. Surely it should not be really necessary to establish a special work around to avoid this trap when a check box offers a simple solution.
Ok. Yes agree the waiting time to wait for Roon to reload can be substantial, especially as the library grows. And then sometimes it shuts down randomly during load, which exacerbates the problem. Grrr! - And to silence the naysayerss, easy enough to put a checkbox in options to allow for āQuick Shutdownā instead of checkbox shutdown. But then youāll still meet opposition in that there will be too many options, or that the developers have better things to do than listen to such mundane requests, hehe.