In this version 4 of Winbox there is a unique feature that I appreciate, which is the pop-up reminder about a new version for the box that is currently being accessed.
However, unfortunately not all routers that are being accessed via Winbox have internet so they can download the new RouterOS themselves. It would be great if Winbox could perform an indirect software upgrade, by buffering the mentioned RouterOS in the cache and then re-transferring it into that router.
Not a bad idea, but definitely wants to be an opt in feature.
If I wanted to support everything, with any package running 7.24.2 I would need 218MB.
Means Winbox would need a separate folder to pull those images from.
Me personally I think that's fine, I've got several GB of ROS packages on my computer.
When will WinBox 3.44 come out?
Probably never.
WinBox3 has been EOL'd as far as we know.
And Why?
I'll take: "It's old, deprecated, ugly, non platform portable, a redundant development efforts, and has been replaced by WB4" for the win . . .
If newer ROS versions require at least WB4 to connect and will not work with WB3, does anyone need a drawing to spell it out ?
It's obvious then.
No need to give bad points for something which is simply the plain truth, whether you like it or not, doesn't change the facts.
People don't know how to read or they just simply refuse to, same with some complaints about the Wb4 ui, some people just don't know what a format is and what a norm is.
Turns out reading is hard for other people and most of the time they don't take what they read as its written for some reason so they seek confirmation.
I said it before and i will say it again i see absolutely 0 reason to be mad about the change other than the change of habits, nothing is being deprecated or forcibly closed to the point u cant use it anymore, other than an objectively more shit version of what you're suppost to use because of multiple of reasons i said multiple of times on other posts.
So people continually crying and whining are just unwilling to change and are afraid of changing their habits, instead of this being "forced arbitration" or "malicious practice" from Mikrotik and if it was other way around of asking the community what they want, it would start a war between wb3 and wb4 people and it would end up the same way this will end, by wb3 being deprecated because wb4 is objectively better and actively being worked on and supported.
So the concensus being, get on with it.
From my recent journey of configuring WB4 from scratch: why is WB4 incapable of sizing column widths to fit a) content or b) column header???? Now I first time open a window with a table and initially you are unable to read the data displayed. Because you either can't read the column header or you see "..." truncated content. This is silly. And the more windows I open the more I have to size stupidly.
have u tried double clicking the dividers, it autosizes lmao
Does not work well for all column types. And still very cumbersome. In Excel I can select all cells and do "auto width". WB4 does not offer that.
Column sizing is one thing that was actually solved already. But because MikroTik is always reinventing the wheel instead of using established design systems, they do hard to solve things again - that were already resolved decades before.
good thing this is not excel or in any sort of association microsoft, suggest them via ticket, its a good suggestion tho, it does bother me too that when i open a new window or a submenu that sometimes the columns are not properly sized or auto-adjusted
"A cow has ticks.
To get rid of the ticks, we kill the cow."
More like "A cow is 21 years old, no longer produces milk, is lame and can barely walk and has just contracted mad cow disease (fatal,mformthose unfamiliar). Let's put it out of it's misery - it no longer has a purpose, and is costing a fortune to keep alive when the young cows can do the job better"
Fixed it for you ... 
You could go on listing bad examples forever, a flood of bullshit spouted one after another.
So, should we euthanize everyone over sixty just because they no longer have the strength they did when they were young?
Just kill them off, plain and simple. An end to the problems of old age and public spending.
Better to leave serious matters to people who still have the smell of milk on their breath and not a shred of experience,
let's get rid of everyone who has experience to spare.
Better to put only young people with absolutely no experience in charge, on their own,
instead of pairing them with older people who actually know how to get the job done...
Ahhh, the "WinFappers" who lack the skills, willingness, or desire to move beyond ancient interfaces and technologies . . . .
You bore me.
I described a fatal, incurable disease . . . In what delusional world does this delusion seem even remorely similar? (And that was in response to a post that neglected/diminished just about every issue in WB3 . . . )
And when did I say {gib=ve it all to the young"? Not sure if thismis language, attitude, or ??? . . . The point is that everything has a lifespan, and WB3 has exceeded its, and needs to be let go.
And it's not like WB3 is "alive" . . . or did that minor little detail fly "over the top" as well?
Do you still have the same car you had in 1980? Probably could have kept that going as well . . .
The key "take-away" is not that WB3 only has minor issues . . . it has flaws that could only be corrected by anre-write, IE WB4.
(Or perhaps you just want to cling to your box of tissues and crusty picture of Bill Gates a little longer?)
(deleted, to avoid misunderstandings with other users)
All these stupid, ridiculous examples, mixed with masturbatory insults and the like, that you come out with...
You are nothing but a walking heap of insults, you have absolutely no substance.
Just not wrong . . . and I do stand up for what I believe in (and can always justify why it if asked, and which I (unlike yourself) have done on this topic repeatedly. . . ).
(I guess in your world, MS should still be developing Windows 95, since there might be someone who can't get past it either . . . it's the exact same argument! Technology advances! Deal with it!)