And when will the dark theme appear in Winbox 3?
Here we go again
I have said it before. If Winbox continue on its current trajectory, the next iteration of "cross-whatever" compatibility will have a single codebase, come packaged with its own Chromium blob, and run on all platforms.
RIP
Agreeā¦ How many times have someone from Mikrotik staff mentioned controller. There is even a topic about itā¦ Still nothingā¦
As far as I understand, such a controller would be intended to remotely manage a number of devices, e.g. for an ISP or a company routing a private network. Similar to how CAPsMAN manages access points.
While I could see an application for that in our network, I donāt think it was intended for management of your single device at home.
And, it will probably never materialize because of course the feature requests would go all over the place and making something that is useful for the potential users but still not too complicated to deploy will be a real challengeā¦
1 Like
Well, for home use no, but I would like to have some centralised place for mgmt as I have about 60-70 active devices right now.
I would be happy with an updated version of the dudeā¦
Indeed, that is what I am thinking about as well. But it would not be an alternative to Winbox.
Problem of course is how to deploy such a tool in an existing network which already has a lot of diverged configuration, without starting from scratch.
I could imagine some firewall template, some BGP over point-to-point WiFi link template, etc. But when everyone posts their requirements and wishes in a big topic, it quickly becomes clear that a first implementation will satisfy nobody and it will get a bad reputation quickly.
Yea, but I think itās time that Mikrotik starts from somewhereā¦ Itās impossible to satisfy everybody but competition already have solutions that works quite well. They should start small and expand feature set as they go.
For management of "my single device at home" it is plenty sufficient to have WebFig or CLI. Or Mikrotik Home app, or Mikrotik Pro app. Or legacy Winbox 3.
There it is. If you have a network with more than 100 devices in it, thereās no point in exclamation āno other competitor has WinBoxā. You might see the point in having a controller for managing configurations across all devices after futile wasting of time with WinBox with all these devices.
I would say that WinBox can be āthe thingā if network has 10-20 devices at most. Otherwise it can just be seen as a relic.
The drag and drop file download/upload from WB3 still doesnāt seem to be present in this WB4 version.
Cant work with such a s*it!
These are really harsh words. I do understand that the new application still has some shortcomings. I am new to MikroTik and have to say that my impression is very different from yours. I have been a Mac user for a long time and I am happy that MikroTik brought their configuration utility to my platform. Yes, it does not look native (and probably never will) but it feels very responsive and all the important features seem to work so far. It is great to be able to configure devices even when their network is not properly configured. In fact, WinBox for macOS paved the way to new hardware worth thousands of euros.
Am I saying that the new WinBox is perfect? No, it is not. At least not yet. I have a lot of experience in software development and my experience is that there are a lot of ā1.0ā releases out there that are WAY WAY worse than WinBox 4.
I am really looking forward to the journey with WinBox (and MikroTik). I am sure, many of the minor UI glitches will be addressed in future releases.
Here are a couple of things that I would like to see:
- Please go through all windows, one by one, and set proper initial sizes. They seem to remember their last size so that this is only minor but the first impression would be a lot better if they had proper initial sizes
- Comments are really helpful. I am not sure if the presentation is there, yet. I donāt like them as columns all the time and I donāt like them as a separate line. I suppose being able to choose on a window by window basis really could be worth trying.
- A bit of colouring would also be helpful. For example, when working with a lot of firewall rules you really could benefit from being able to separate blocks. Currently, I am using passthrough rules with comment ā====ā for that.
- I am wondering if Reset Configuration with a run after script could verify the syntax of the script before the reboot. That still would not catch all the errors but would save a lot of time troubleshooting missing curly braces, quotes or other minor syntax errors.
- I am wondering if it would be a good idea to be able to show the command line path for all of the dialogs in the UI as well. For many, it is straight forward (/interface), for others it is confusing (/interface/wireguardā why is that a top level button but is in /interface/wireguard but OpenVPN is also in /interface/openvpn-server but is located in PPP in the UI and IPSec is located in the menu IP in the UI but is found in /ip/ipsec).
- It appears inconsistent to me that multiple items can be specified for some settings but a table needs to be used for others. I can add multiple tagged vlans by pressing plus but I have to add a separate line for a new interface in an interface list.
- I would like to see comments more prominently in drop downs. They only show when you open the drop down. I guess that is most relevant in dropdowns for interfaces where the comment would describe the purpose of the interface (I try not to rename them to much as I want that to be consistent across devices).
And most importantly: I find VLAN configuration really confusing and not intuitive. I believe that is a bad thing for something that can lock you out quite easily which also not protected by safe mode.
1 Like
You can put these rules to different chain to make then not executed even as a passthrough to save time.
Then likely you cannot appreciate how this 4.01 version comes after 16 (sixteen) months of (more or less) crappy betas:
long time members are heavily frustrated by this, seeing how the supposedly mature enough for release version is still full of missing functionalities, terrible ergonomics, besides the appearance/native/non-native issues.
If this was a second or third Beta release it would be just fine, but it is the release after 47 (fourtyseven) betas and one rc. 
3 Likes
Yes, I know. I am using custom chains for a lot of things. For some cases it is easier to put things in one chain, though.
Zones A, B, C, D results in my forward chain looking something like this (with the following jump rules):
- A ā> B
- A -> C
- A -> D
- =======
- B -> A
- B -> C
- B -> D
- =======
- C -> A
- C -> B
- C -> D
- ======
- D -> A
- D -> B
- D -> C
Is there really any performance impact by my passthrough rules? These are disabled.
Not mentioned in the previous post. 
No, of course not. I feel your frustration and I would probably also be frustrated if I were in your shoes. Software development takes time. But look on the bright side: if there were 47 betas, they were at least very open about the progress of their new software.
or just more rely on others to do the testing.
There are not that many vendors with ālinesā between beta, rc and release versions as ambiguous as Mikrotikā¦