As also indicated in some other posts, the download section is not usable.
When I go to the location https://mikrotik.com/download as before, there is a “find your device” but it only looks in “current devices” until you change that (why? I can understand that in a sales section, but why in a download section?) and when finally a product is found, it shows the specifications of the device instead of the download files. I think that link to find device is misleading, it does not belong on the download page when it is not about finding downloadable files for a device you own.
First New is new, great!
BUT
ALL starts with new
AND
Current starts with new
Archived is the only one that starts with actual archived models.
In other words, ALL is useless and should be removed.
New should be new only.
Current should be current without new at the top!!
PLUS current should be organized.
In any case its the wrong approach>>>>>>>>>
Recommendation.
Keep the First RoW, where the person can put in search query!
Change the wording to the left, instead of a pull down menu put in the text.
State Product Name: which makes it clearer the purpose of the the manual entry location.
BELOW this a row of boxes SAME AS HARDWARE PAGE except smaller as they can all fit on one ROW.
(This maintains a more consistent feel approach to the website as well )
When a person selects any box, he/she/lampshade gets the pull down choices of:
NEW
CURRENT
ARCHIVED.
The views seem random for current and archived, suggest either alphabetical ordered or some method so that one is hunting with an intuitive approach!!!
Finally once the product is selected. THE FIRST thing should be the download information and then then the rest of the information you have.
Perhaps a compromise here on the download archive?
To be honest, I'm not sure it's bad for website to steer proletarian users to see only latest stable on currently shipping hardware. It is a "clean", less-scary interface that does not require a user to know the CPU model inside. And, generally, someone should upgrade to latest stable unless it's known to have an effecting bug. Now this does happen too often, but that's kinda different problem, like that there is no "long-term"
But perhaps adding under "Tools" some page that allows downloading the any version by architecture, as well as providing the URL for those that automate download in script. So those that like "full access" to versions/release notes/etc can pull that up. i.e. Similar to what I add to my schema tools page:
While I think it good download are on each hardware page.... But it be nice if on the hardware pages, in addition to showing the downloads, it listed offered the default configuration download and listed the supported QuickSet profiles – since that information is only loosely tracked in docs, and variants of same model (like LtAP) don't always have same defconf. Also some of the various hardware offload features aren't so clear from docs, so it was clearer on the specific hardware page what kinds of off-loading was available that might be good too.
Yep, more generally, it is common on some other sites that you go to the hardware list of products (hopefully divided between "current" and "archived/out of production"), find your specific device and ON ITS PAGE there is a LINK to all the applicable downloads.
This way - expecially for new users - knowing which "platform" or "architecture" would not really be needed and since the "selection of suitable downloads" is done by Mikrotik, it would be not prone to user errors.
Well said. I know MikroTik well so I know what software is needed... But I actually hate when vendors don't link the current software on the product page and make you search support site... so bit empathic to those don't know MikroTik as well and trying to figure out how to update the "correct" version. Why I think the cross-reference download is great.
In fact, if the "Download" page just had a search for your product and that's "main" interface, that be okay by me. AND use current download control/UI – with all versions – in a "more hidden location" for advanced users.
Well I created this SUP-205126 support ticket couple of minutes after the new website lounched. I just received the same answer as we heard multiple times…
We’ll stop using old versions when you finally understand the meaning of a stable branch.
As far as I’m concerned, v7 is your stable branch
v7.14 is our old stable release
v7.19 is our current stable release
vv7.20 might be your new stable but it will probably not be ours.
No-one with any sense runs your lastest ‘stable’, at least not until you’re moved onto a new ‘breaking stable’ release. Even then, 6 months is a not unreasonable production update schedule, and to be honest, if it’s actually STABLE, it might last a lot longer.
Your website was the one thing you hadn’t broken for ages, now you’ve gone and messed that up too.
Your choice, install known CVE from mikrotik archive, or install CVE from 3rd party archive + get a virus as a free bonus. Or you know, just use latest versions.
It may be fair point, especially for home users. But if you also have business customers with hundreds or thousands of MikroTik devices in the field... where upgrades have many different costs.
Agree @normis is a bit insulting to professionals – some who promote your products – to say they want viruses & dumb...when all they want is website dropdown with more items and clarity (or a "long-term"). IMO, 7.19.6 should be fine (e.g. using the "previous stable"), given there is no long-term, and the desire not be a "ginny pig" for a release with "no miles", seems like a very prudent approach for professionals. Yet, apparently, all customer should use latest stable or they are stupid. Great message.
But like device-mode, we now add this simpleton "only run stable" advice for large deployments... that point to the slide from targeting ISP/OEM/DC/etc customers to targeting home users countinuing... which is disappointing.
If I may, this sounds overall strange, a CVE is related to a discovered vulnerability, this is EITHER addressed (and resolved) OR it is not, IMHO"improving stability" sounds simply not suitable to a CVE.
Case in point where having the download versions handily available would have been helpful today:
I have a CHR on a Raspberry Pi 5. I’m trying to upgrade it from 7.15 to whatever the latest I can put on it (7.20 shows up as “stable”). It downloads it, fails (with no reason why), and stays on the current version. I have kept 7.15, 7.16, and 7.19 for the hardware I use on my network and got rid of the others. 7.15 won’t upgrade to 7.19.4, so I upgraded it to 7.16, which worked. 7.16 failed trying to go to 7.19 and 7.20, so I had to go find 7.17 and 7.18 to test my theory. After (re)searching this forum thread (which I only knew existed because I’ve been following it), I found the magic URL and changed it to get the versions I needed.
(Turns out the CHR won't upgrade past 7.17, so I have to troubleshoot what’s going on there.)
Had a colleague who’s trying to get 7.19.4 for some of his switches (because we both know that’s what works best for us). He asked me where on the new site one could get those versions.
What used to take a few seconds turned into a few minutes for both of us. Heaven forbid we didn’t know that this thread existed.
I agree, but Mikrotik need to take this into account. There are Home Users who can use Mikrotik, but we have professional expectations on availability of software. There are those Home Users who could not work with a Mikrotik router, who would prefer the consumer type dumbed down router their ISP gives them. It looks to me that if Mikrotik are targetting Home Users, they need to work out the differences between the 2 types, because the Home Users who can use Mikrotik will not be satisfied with their current stance on software and the ones who can't use Mikrotik are never going to be persuaded.
