Sure, it doesn't use a lot of resources, and you can HIDE it, but it is a dumb/unreasonable way to go with this on principle.
Even if it uses no resources or anything, why would this be such a hard problem to solve.
All but the bare minimum is unloaded when it is not enabled.
That's precisely the reason I posted this in the first place. There is neither need nor want for any "bare minimum" when I'm actively exiting a program. When I turn off my tv, I wouldn't be fine with it powering down to some 'secret/hidden standby mode' - because some random person decided on my behalf that that's the functionality I want. I'd take it back to the shops for some Russian slapping.
When I turn things off / exit programs / shut things down -- I want them to not still drain any power or run anything in the background, since there is no reason for them to do so. It being programmed to keep running is well beyond strange, if it actually isn't doing anything. Somewhere in the building stage, someone decided for some reason to disable the default action of closing the program when you're trying to close the program. And if so, the statement:
You very likely have dozens of apps installed now that are running background processes on your PC, arti... There is nothing nefarious going on here, trust me...
doesn't quite cut it. That comment is why I haven't used the program, which I did pay for, since. "Others do it too" isn't a valid reason, but a meaningless cop-out, and developers assuming they can be trusted is why we have millions - to billions - of personal data-leaks on a weekly basis.
- If there is
an actual reason for it, and it isn't nefarious, then why is that actively not being shared?
- If there isn't
a reason for it, then it's simply a bug that needs fixing: I want it to close -- it doesn't close.