I would like the left sections in winbox to be in some sort of order. They aren’t in any really. Maybe alphabetical. It would make use a little easier and quicker. Also I think a reorganizing of what’s in system and what’s in tools would be good. telnet is on one, mac-telnet is on the other, they are somewhat similar in purpose -why not in the same menu? Ssh client is more of a tool than a system setting. Thanks!
suggestions welcome. everyone - let’s hear it 
!
The two things I’d like to see is the items with the longest dropdown window at the top of the list - for example depending on screen settings - you click on system and the list of system options is off the bottom of the screen - you mean theres ntp options somewhere at the bottom - and secondly to have the telnet function available from the root in a similar fashion to the simple ping. rather than in system. With routing
problems etc. the first thing I want to do having reach the next in the chain
Agreed, along with ssh.
/telnet w.x.y.z, is more natural then /sys tel w.x.y.z.
Could easily shave 1-2 grumbles per troubleshooting session, and save 5min explination time per tech.
–Eric
I would like to split shutdown and reboot buttons by other. Sometimes we want quickly reboot the router, but we click not reboot, but whutdown button
Yeah, or maybe for shutdown a second “Are you REALLY sure you want to shut down your router that is an 80km round trip and hours of downtime away?” 
Everytime I pull something from that area of the menu I cringe…
Ditto.
I have shut down a router twice by accident.
Shutdown and Reboot have to be separated and a second dialogue box should ask for shutdown confirmation!!
George
Confirmation dialog box when disabling interface(s) in winbox.
A facility similar to that of IOS which allows piping CLI output through a filter.
e.g.,
/log print | grep -i extensive
or
/log print | incl extensive
rgds/ldv
you’re right but it could be done already, e.g:
ssh admin@192.168.255.1 “/log print without-paging” | grep info
Thanks for your post.
rgds/ldv
Another minor interface issue…
It would be nice if Ctrl-D, in winbox terminals, were sent through to the process, rather than closing the window.
–Eric
One more usability suggestion..
On most linux and many unix systems, administrative user (root) has a different prompt. What the prompt is, is of course based on the shell, not the OS.
As you see, regular users get a greater than prompt, root gets a number symbol.
jp@mexican:~> su -
Password:
===========================================================
Warning - All Access is logged.
Unauthorized access will be prosecuted.
===========================================================
mexican:~ #
[nobody@mis south] >
[admin@mis south] >
In MT, the administrative user gets the greater than prompt, just like the less privelaged user. It would nice if the prompt differed for the types of user, just like in linux shells.
For me, I’d like to be able to make the winbox window smaller. Right now, you can’t make it any smaller than the list of buttons on the menu. If I need to see 2 or 3 winbox screens at once, it is difficult because I cannot make them fit.
Also, I’d like a button at the top that would arrange all open windows. You can do it by “tiling” the windows (all would be fitted to current winbox area), or “cascading” (that’s the windows word for it).
This is not very clearly stated. The “windows” I’d like to be able to “tile” or “cascade” are the open applets in the winbox.
with regard to software packaging to make it more userfriendly…
Just plain routerboard package I presume is rb230, whereas the routeros-rb500 is for 5xx/1xx routerboards. Perhaps routerboard-xxx.npk should be renamed routeros-rb230-xxx.npk to be properly descriptive. If there were a way to make the naming include the rb1xx for the 5xx package that would be helpful too.
“plain” package fits also regular x86 equipment.
routeros-x86 is for all X86 (PC like) devices, including RB230.
routeros-rb500 is for MIPS processor routerboard devices
While we’re at it, in Winbox, it would be nice if there were a scale on the traffic graphs.
If you want to know what the bandwidth peaks are, you have to compare it to the most recent traffic, estimate or calculate a factor, multiply it by the current bandwidth, which had probably changed by the time you did the math. If there were a scale, even a changing scale, it would be much easier to see a traffic spike and follow the horizontal rule to the a y-axis scale. Time scale on the X-axis would be good too.
I use mrtg for long term traffic graphing, but the traffic graphs like above are very nice for more detailed analysis.
… or you could do a mouse-click on the graph and have your scale …