Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DanielBMe]

You know that means absolutely nothing to me.  I'm not a coder, I'm a user.  Keep in mind, just putting text onscreen is not the problem, it's making it actually do something when you select it.  Hopefully, that doesn't come out sounding the wrong way...

[Castius]

I'd like to be able to make a watch progress bar in certain places. Is that possible with the current skinning framework?

In general I find most skinning issues overlap the difficulty setting up theater views the way I want. So I don't have a ton of energy going into the skinning part.

I added a background video I like.  And put  picture of my kids for the kids section. Then I stopped. I understand why this conversation is hard. We had a great threads on just adding an option to control what the left arrow did. In the end there was a change that helps. But I still didn't get what I needed. So the desire to go back into theater view is still pretty low.

I don't think I need a ton of charges to make it better. But there seems to a lack of control. In both navigation and layout that prevent more freedom.

Let's say I like the Netflix layout. Can I make that a theater view with a somewhat similar navigation feel? I've tried a little and I don't feel I can. So I don't try harder.

To give more concrete detail on this. I really like to see the metadata be more interesting. Like images associated with people. The clicking on then shows me the other movies I have with them. I don't think that's possible. So I can't replicate a view I want to make.

I hope these random bits of data help. I know there not supper concrete for implementing changes. But they keep me from going much further into that world.

[Daydream]

Well there is the big difference, you don't want to skin the UI we have, you want an entirely new UI, including new logic and a lot of new functionality, which is not something that I can just make happen by improving the skinning system.

That is correct. Also the UI you guys have is more than 10 years old, it hasn't improve much in the last 5 years, and I can't see what the interest will be for any user to work to just pretty it up a bit here and there.

Not to pour cold water on the idea, but just to tell you what the obstacles for doing that are...

Actually Jim, I agree with everything you said there. Those are the obstacles, those are the realities. Sometimes I try to place myself in your (collective) shoes (as hilarious as it may sound). "Why the heck they don't do it? They must hate it. If not that they must surely don't like us". That would be mighty crazy. Surely that is not what drives your decisions.

But that brings us to a very political topic. What does influence your decisions.
What follows is just my opinion, you can delete it after reading it, all I'm saying is that the events can be interpreted like this too. Some of us don't just want things blindly, some do think. They just don't think like you .

Roughly approximating, you guys made a decision a decade ago, silently, to lay the foundation for going cross-platform. About 4-5 years ago was the first time when a public poll was made about what people prefer. Neither OSX nor Linux gained more than 33%, and if anything Linux came on top. What happened next? OSX became a development priority, between the new platforms. What can be read into this? Polls be damned we gonna do whatever we like to do.

Now for the record I care about OSX and Linux exactly zero. But I acknowledge there are many people using them and they should enjoy MC too, should that be their choice. Heck, if that gives JRiver more stability, more market share, more money, more whatever is good and cool, go for it.

How many guys are you there to do this? Mmm yeah, exactly. So then it takes 10 years. While other things get put on hold. Theater View? A war of attrition. Pictures? Psshhhh... IPTC implementation dated from... the late unpleasantness, 48bit support not really seeing it, reading a few hundred MB tiff locks everything (queue to the other thread where interface locks are discussed); all 'good' here. And those are just things that interest me, I don't speak for everybody.
It might've been a tour de force for you all, a point to be proven, a goal to accomplish when so many others failed. You make better software than big companies. And while I would never argue quantity over quality, it remains a fact that your bandwidth is not the bandwidth of a corporation with 1500 people. So those decisions affect our time. Our waiting time. There are many great things to be done, and there's only that many that this team, as genius as they are, can do.

It was your decision that set things in motion like that, and it was also your right. Your company. Just don't expect to take no heat from us. The ones that refuse to be sedated into waiting years for something to come down the pipe.

I am willing to do a bit of work on improving the skinning options for Theater View. But we have to be clear on that: It has to be actually skinning current Theater View, and not implementing a load of new UI functionality.

Unfortunately this can be read like: we can do a bit of work, so you guys have a few more toys to play with, to improve what we think is best, not what you think is best. So in effect the only option is to work on something we don't want to deal to begin with. Besides the too little too late argument, I don't see how this will help anybody with actual skills at designing anything. I for one appreciate the offer, but politely decline.

For example from the XML of a skin:

Code: [Select]

    <Item Text="[Time]" Location="*\***" TextColor="FFFFFF" Rect="Titlebar\80,0,98,100" Capitalization="0" Alignment="1" Alpha="50" Size="[Medium Text Height]" />

Can we put any field in the database on screen like that? Can I place a "x of that many" object on screen? Where "that many" is calculated with count across function? In summery, can we have widgets? See how fast this gets derailed?

[MrHaugen]

The suggestions for concrete skinning suggestions have been several. Perhaps it's not been gathered in one thread in one nice simple list of suggestions, but it's there. I agree however, that there could be more of it! The problem is that we don't have that many experienced skinners for Theater View. At least when you look at the skinning development community of other apps. Those few that are actually might not be heard very well.

Here's one example of a skinning discussion: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=88011.msg604014#msg604014
I gave some feedback my self, but you have to understand that I'm FAR form a knowledgeable person when it comes to skinning. So I don't know the underlying problems or possibilities here.

There's also been some very good insight from Xplain. He have created the JR Metro skins, which in my opinion are some of the best produced for Theater View. I think he pretty much gave up skinning because of the limitations. He's spoken about those limitations in several posts. He have also added a bunch of concrete examples of what he want to see in the skinning engine, in a dedicated threat for this exact purpose. I don't know if this thread was started by me, but I suspect it was. Unfortunately I can't find it again. It's possible it was on the beta forums. Just search for "Theater View skin" or skinning, and you'll get lots of posts with Skin and Theater view discussions. Some with very concrete suggestions for improvements.

When we look at both Theater view skinning and options or restructures of the interface, I spent weeks of my time a few years ago and posted an elaborate suggestion for an overhaul. It consisted of lots of small, and some big changes that would pretty much satisfy everyone. Very little came of it. So, I can't do that all over. I have it documented, so I could post it again. But this formatting also takes time, so it would be better to move the old post if it's of interest.

Here's a link to another post regarding XBMC\Kodi skins, which I think gives some more insight. It also shows a small part of the suggestion I previously added to the beta forum post:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=82489.msg562553#msg562553


I would love to see changes here, but to be completely honest I have my doubts if this should even be a priority now. While I think that a good and flexible Theater View are very important to get those casual users and former KODI users over, I think that streaming is a much more pressing matter. A couple of years ago, the situation was the other way. I have moved completely away from JRiver my self. I only use JRiver so look up where I left of my series, so I can resume them on streaming service. I ONLY use Streaming services these days. The numbers of users increase day by day. Streaming services are getting better and there are more and more of them. Because of most of this services are so persistent of keeping their subscribers tied to their platform, I'm not sure if this is a problem that can really be solved. But if it is, you should most definitely do something about it. Because, this will drain most of the user base in time. Even the audiophiles will eventually find that there are services that gives them adequate quality in streaming one day.

I don't know if there are any solutions to this right now. Only thing I can think of is to improve the plugin capabilities. Especially in Theater View. So your user base can help you out with 3'rd party access to streaming services. That's the only way around I can see now. For some of the services.

[csimon]

To add my 50p (inflation...)

I guess Theater View configuration can be split into:

1. Cosmetic improvements
2. Usability improvements
3. Customisation and components

I think, possibly, the skinning and config options already provide 1. Font size, colours, background etc.

2 is the biggest area for me. For example, inability to easily access the current playing now list and edit it, awkward and hard-to-find transport controls, zone-changing awkward (e.g. to change zone while in TV I have to back out of TV and go into Audio and change the zone from there - not sure as yet if there's a way to add the zone changer to a roller), and also other issues pointed out in the Touch Screen thread.

3 relates to the ability to define and place objects on the screen, and types of object, e.g. cover flow, layout of cover art panes and info panes, popup text windows for comments, lyrics etc. This is sometimes to create new screens that are not provided out of the box, but also sometimes people want this sort of ability in order to get round usability issues described above.

I have tried in the past to create a better Now Playing Screen, for info only not even for playback control, using Visualisation Studio, but found it impossible to even place cover art and text objects where I wanted them, the tool just didn't seem to behave as I expected.

I'm not using the specific touch screen skin for Theater View even though I've got a touch screen because it didn't look as nice as the others, and also the menus on the home screen didn't work properly because if the second levelr expands and it's more than a few items it goes off the bottom of the screen and you can no longer access the rest of the menu.

Whether a product should be open to flexible/infinite customisation by the user is open to debate but at least sort out the usability issues so that people are less likely to want to customise. True, a prettier now playing screen is hardly likely to drive users of Kodi over to JRiver, but on the other hand once people are here and they discover the limitations and usability issues there are more likely to be dissatisfied users which genreates bad publicity.  Listening to current users should have just as much weight as trying to attract new customers.

[ldoodle]

I'm not saying that we won't ever do it.  I'm only trying to explain why we're not enthusiastic about doing it now.

Although I am the OP, I agree with this entirely.

This subject is more of a wish list item for me.  Video and Audio quality must always come first for a media playback application.

[ldoodle]

Is there a comprehensive guide available (the Wiki one's not great) on what can and can't be done in a Skin?  And how to create one?

How did xplain eventually get to JR Metro?  How long did it take him?

I don't mind having a go myself!

[flac.rules]

Although I am the OP, I agree with this entirely.

This subject is more of a wish list item for me.  Video and Audio quality must always come first for a media playback application.

I don't disagree with video and audio quality coming first, but this is already very good, and few changes are made to audio and video quality, I don't think prioritzing the theatre view will come at the cost of that quality. Although I would tend to agree with haugen that somehow "solving" the streaming problem might be of equal or higher importance.

[xplain]

How did xplain eventually get to JR Metro?  How long did it take him?

It took some time to do, but i didn't mind, as I thought is was a fun projekt,

The Metro skin was my third skin, so at that time I knew how to gat around it, my first skin took a long time, but again I didn't mind.
I learned my self how to skin, by looking in the Base.xml file and main.xml for the skins that comes with the program,
from  there I just edited them in Windows note, it was a lot of hit and mis, but some worked, and the developers also helped with fixing some of the bumps on the way.

I will gladly help.......


I will throw in an idea I had along time ago:



In this example it's recent movies, when on movies in the menu, and should be recent albums in Audio..................


And


Make it possible to show a little window with the Playing Now (If something is playing) on the "Home screen"

[ldoodle]

Thanks xplain.  To be honest, I doubt I'll start my own skin as Metro has the base of it, so I'll just tweak that a little bit to my liking.

Your screenshot highlights a big bugbear of mine though.  All the different cases of fonts.  Is that a 'design' change or a 'skin' change.  I'd like everything all lower case all of the time or all title case all of the time.

Not lower case if it's not selected and title case if it is selected.

Another idea I've literally just had:  you know if you've got a film series and you have theater view set to group by series, the cover art shows as stacked on top of each other, with ones behind angling outwards at the top.  It would look a million times better if the images rotated, like 'active' tiles on the Windows Start Screen, with animation direction selectable (from left to right, from right to left, from top to bottom, from bottom to top, random  etc.).  I think a sliding animation would be best, rather than fades, zooms etc. (though these could be options too).

Same with audio (artists view etc).

I don't like the stacked cover art approach currently used.

[xplain]

All the different cases of fonts.  Is that a 'design' change or a 'skin' change.  I'd like everything all lower case all of the time or all title case all of the time.

Not lower case if it's not selected and title case if it is selected.

That is coded in the program, and cannot be changed in the skin

[ldoodle]

That is coded in the program, and cannot be changed in the skin

See, it's all these things that I think should be customizable as an option.

[fitbrit]

Does anyone know whether MC can be used as the preferred playback software from within KODI?
If so, that might the solution some of you are looking for:

The UI of KODI and all the skins/customisation that entails.
The sound and video quality of MC.
Costs nothing if you already have MC.

Personally, I used to badly want a different Theater View, which is what many of you are asking for. Having worked with a many people who are really into music - JRiver's bread and butter, I think - all of them have been very happy with Theater View. None of them have complained about its dated looks. They can find their music and they can play it.

The look of theater view is important to me, but not THAT important. When the time is right, Jim's obstacles may be overcome, just like they have for other issues like cross-platform support.

[flac.rules]

Does anyone know whether MC can be used as the preferred playback software from within KODI?
If so, that might the solution some of you are looking for:

The UI of KODI and all the skins/customisation that entails.
The sound and video quality of MC.
Costs nothing if you already have MC.

Personally, I used to badly want a different Theater View, which is what many of you are asking for. Having worked with a many people who are really into music - JRiver's bread and butter, I think - all of them have been very happy with Theater View. None of them have complained about its dated looks. They can find their music and they can play it.

The look of theater view is important to me, but not THAT important. When the time is right, Jim's obstacles may be overcome, just like they have for other issues like cross-platform support.

I have tried using another front-end to run MC,  I would call it a less than ideal solution in many ways.

[fitbrit]

I have tried using another front-end to run MC,  I would call it a less than ideal solution in many ways.

Yup, I would never do it myself.

[jmhsb]

There is a lot that could be done to improve Theater View without really changing the UI or the skinning engine.  My biggest complaint is that it is essentially an undynamic wall-of-text. 

For a simple start, how about creating more folders in the Cover Art folder that are associated with standard fields?  Genre, actor, director, etc.  Let users manually populate them to test it out, then eventually add code to auto-populate them from existing databases.  Finally working up to something like Kodi’s Extended Info Script that pulls all sorts of metadata and images:  http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=160558  You can then add in icons/images for ratings, codecs, studios, etc.  Even pull YouTube trailers. 

The next part is improving the dynamic navigation of Theater View.  This was started not too long ago with some simple linking of fields to shut some people up.  But it could be flushed out more.  There are some known bugs:  http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?action=printpage;topic=97432.0  List fields do not work perfectly.   And there should be some guidelines on what media sub types it pulls.

Having dynamically linking fields with images would go a long way without really changing the layout or the navigation.  Something like this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvOuwMz0KyM The layout and theme isn’t as important as being able to see actor’s pictures, linked to cover art of all their movies in my library.  Icons for the IMDB and MPAA ratings, etc.

This would be improved functionality without a complete overhaul of the UI.  It doesn’t have to be all done at once, but small steps at a time towards things like this would be appreciated. 

[Ekpen]

Not to pour cold water on the idea, but just to tell you what the obstacles for doing that are...

I would guess that such a project would take 3 man months to do, and would then take 3 more months to debug.

This would cost around $50,000, and would divert us from other equally important work.

It would create new instability and frustration for some current users.  

Would it pay back our investment?  That is the question, and I think the answer is probably not anytime soon.  

I doubt that Kodi users would suddenly flock to MC because it could be modified.  It would take a Kodi skinner or two deciding that JRiver had potential and then doing the work and then circulating the news.

One other factor is that some percentage of users are reasonably happy with the current interface.  That includes most of the JRiver team.  I would not like to upset those people in order to satisfy others.

I'm not saying that we won't ever do it.  I'm only trying to explain why we're not enthusiastic about doing it now.

Your Software-- AKA MC is a part of my daily life. I can not do without it. We love this software.. let us find a way to improve it.
Look at the Linux and Mac platforms, we are all patiently waiting to get it beefed up to have theater view, televisions, and full video playback capabilities.
 
If it will cost $50,000, jack up the price of admission, bring in the Kodi skinners. For me I am willing to pay more for using MC. Somehow, skinning, eye candy comes up  every time, it needs to be addressed. We will be patient. Users of MC will understand the head ache and pains involved.
I bet, three years from now, we are going to be discussing this feature.
Jim.. Let us do it. "Enough is Enough"

Thanks.

George

[)p(]

Yup, I would never do it myself.

In our living room htpc setup we now use plex for video with audio through the wdm driver to take advantage of jrmc's DSP/convolver. In our case this setup has been rock solid.

[MrHaugen]

There is a lot that could be done to improve Theater View without really changing the UI or the skinning engine.  My biggest complaint is that it is essentially an undynamic wall-of-text.  

For a simple start, how about creating more folders in the Cover Art folder that are associated with standard fields?  Genre, actor, director, etc.  Let users manually populate them to test it out, then eventually add code to auto-populate them from existing databases.  Finally working up to something like Kodi’s Extended Info Script that pulls all sorts of metadata and images:  http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=160558  You can then add in icons/images for ratings, codecs, studios, etc.  Even pull YouTube trailers.  

The next part is improving the dynamic navigation of Theater View.  This was started not too long ago with some simple linking of fields to shut some people up.  But it could be flushed out more.  There are some known bugs:  http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?action=printpage;topic=97432.0  List fields do not work perfectly.   And there should be some guidelines on what media sub types it pulls.

Having dynamically linking fields with images would go a long way without really changing the layout or the navigation.  Something like this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvOuwMz0KyM The layout and theme isn’t as important as being able to see actor’s pictures, linked to cover art of all their movies in my library.  Icons for the IMDB and MPAA ratings, etc.

This would be improved functionality without a complete overhaul of the UI.  It doesn’t have to be all done at once, but small steps at a time towards things like this would be appreciated.  

jmhsb, that's a very good summary. There seems to be a lot of agreement regarding those things. Those that like to have changes at least. I agree that we don't necessarily need to change the whole skinning engine or the Theater View UI. But if the skins were more flexible, some of those things could be added as the users want, via skin customization. And I don't see that as a bad thing.

Most users don't do skinning them self, of course. But if the production of different skins were more popular and different skins were available, it would be easier to change those  to fit your need than tweaking lot's of options. That's here my thoughts go. Differentiate looks to suite different user groups with different skins. I agree however, that most of these things you mention can and should be added as default.


One great thing I want to point out with skinning, is that it would probably take the load off of the developers once it have been properly addressed. If the skinning is flexible, it will give a lot of room for the users to create what ever they want, by them self. That way there would probably be lot less requests for JRiver to handle.

[csimon]

For a simple start, how about creating more folders in the Cover Art folder that are associated with standard fields?  Genre, actor, director, etc. .... You can then add in icons/images for ratings, codecs, studios, etc.

Been requested since at least 2012! 
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=96102.msg662919;topicseen#msg662919

 

Having dynamically linking fields with images would go a long way without really changing the layout or the navigation.  Something like this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvOuwMz0KyM

Yes, that vid shows the difference quite neatly.  Theater View is "alright" but it does look dated. The above video does exactly the same sort of thing as Theater View but with neater presentation, nice fonts, nice little boxes, nice popup window with file info, etc.  And here are some images of Elgato Eye TV:

http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/09/21/elgato_frontrow_2.png
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zylQqQT-1YE/maxresdefault.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2177/2195508589_e4dab6e0de.jpg?v=0

[rlebrette]

We all understand that money and human resources makes the JRiver system work, like a lot of companies.
Big improvements in the Theater View is not top priority in the roadmap.
I deal with this kind of constraints everyday as a software architect, and when coming to this kind of statu quo we have to be inventive.
Maybe this could be addressed differently? JRiver user's community is pretty wide now, why not building something on top of this?
This could help to shift the load on it, and let the dev team to focus on core features.

Some (stupid?) ideas that I just drop here to see if it could make this going in a direction that could make everybody happy. (and potentially broaden the JRiver audience. Yes, I know a lot of people that prefers Kodi, even after they have visited my own installation which is 100% JRiver and they liked it. Just because Kodi is just """nicer""". And until they have this kind of feature they will no go deeper to understand the power of the JRiver DB and audio/video rendering engines)

• Why not to open JRiver MC for this specific need? I don't know how the product is architectured but the core features seems to be well seperated.
  Could the Theater View part be externalyzed and improved by the community? Yes I mean open-sourcing this specific part!
  
• Changing the existing rendering/skin engine is a challenge, why reinventing the wheel? JRiver already provide a lot of external API, which means that an external engine could be used to control the player. That's already what JRiver provides remotely via JRemote or WebGizmo.
  Some months ago I've done some kind of prototype based on Node-Webkit (https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/List-of-apps-and-companies-using-nw.js), it's so powerful: HTML5, SVG, JavaScript for skinning and scripting, the only show stopper I've found is that I was not able to control the display view of JRiver, so. But that's something that could be easily improved by the dev team (the Nirvana would be to be able to embed it as a web component)
  

My 2 cents
(sorry if all my sentences are not totally in good english, but think about it if you should write it in french )

[DanielBMe]

My concern is that MC will start looking old.  If you look around these days at things like, IOS, MS Windows 10, Plex, Kodi, XBOX, FB, Playstation etc etc, all the interfaces are very slick.  It's just the way things are and moving more and more towards.  Simple, intuitive, and nice graphics etc.  The surest way to put a nail in your coffin is to stand still.  You end up looking old.  You can have the best and most solid foundation but once you start to look old, people by nature will gravitate towards the things that a) look better and b) allow them to interact in a smoother and faster way.  It's just the way things are. 

I used the analogy of Kodak earlier.  They had a great product.  But times where changing, technology was changing.  They reacted way to slow and by the time they did, it was much too late.  In today's fickle world, things can change practically overnight.

[Don W]

I have a very specific request that, on the surface anyway, seems like a simple change. In playing now view for music, make it possible to remove the rating field. I just don't have any use for ratings. Currently, it is possible to modify the bitmaps used for filled and unfilled stars, allowing you can change the appearance of the stars, but you can't make them go away. I do my best to hide the stars by using transparent bitmaps, but the field is still there.

[Daveyravey]

I prefer functionality over style!  In my opinion the JRiver team are focusing on the important things stability, features, video quality, TV etc. Not eye candy!  that can come later 😁

[flac.rules]

I prefer functionality over style!  In my opinion the JRiver team are focusing on the important things stability, features, video quality, TV etc. Not eye candy!  that can come later 😁

When is "later"? How good mus the other features be? And a good UI is part of the functionality IMHO, and much more important than for instance TV, TV is inflexible and old-school

[Castius]

I'd like to be clear. most requested skinning and other requests. Are geared around improved layout control and functionality. With some eye candy on the side

[gvanbrunt]

Ya know Jim, if resources are the issue, you could do a Kickstarter. I for one would donate...

[MrHaugen]

I'd like to be clear. most requested skinning and other requests. Are geared around improved layout control and functionality. With some eye candy on the side

Exactly. Layout improvements, control and functionality and so on does NOT equal "eye candy". Even if it makes things prettier.

Having rating fields where you need them will improve functionality for some as they don't need to look for it elsewhere.
Having the correct backdrops might improve your familiarity with certain items.
Having the ability to customize the navigation system will improve the functionality, and can at the same time make the UI look better.
Having latest imported movie covers shown on the main menu might look nice, but it also informs the users what new items they have.
Having the ability to use graphics instead of some of the text items today might help people easier understand it's function. And at the same time it might make the UI look more up to date.
Having the ability to map tags to icons to represent resolution, audio type, channels and so on will make people understand the tags much more quickly than a sea of text.

I can go on and on. Most of what we're talking about here are functionality for SOME people. Calling it eye candy is simply wrong in most cases. We have to move on past this. Please.

[ldoodle]

I wouldn't go a far as rlebrette by saying to open-source Theater View.  But it might be a wise move to get someone on a temp. basis to overhaul it and its skinning capabilities.  Would I be unrealistic in saying 6-12 months to accomplish that?

I'd happily pay an extra 10% say to upgrade to MC21 with an all-new Theater View to subsidise this investment.

[ldoodle]

Can I make a feature request, that doesn't seem to hard to implement:

'Return to Standard View' exit option.  If chosen, Standard View remains open after exiting Theater View.

If 'normal' Exit Theater View is chosen, Standard View should also close

[6233638]

Can I make a feature request, that doesn't seem to hard to implement:
'Return to Standard View' exit option.  If chosen, Standard View remains open after exiting Theater View.
If 'normal' Exit Theater View is chosen, Standard View should also close

That would be a "Quit Media Center" option, not "Exit Theater View"
"Exit Theater View" returning to Standard View, as it currently does, would be the expected behavior.
 
"Close Media Center" is one of the options available via the "System Sleep, Shutdown, & More…" option.

[Matt]

Can I make a feature request, that doesn't seem to hard to implement:

'Return to Standard View' exit option.  If chosen, Standard View remains open after exiting Theater View.

If 'normal' Exit Theater View is chosen, Standard View should also close

Closing Media Center is there.

Exit > System Sleep, Shutdown, & More... > Close Media Center