Not sure how many others are using Mac OS with Wine to run Winbox, however with Catalina (next Mac OS) around the corner with 32bit support removed, this puts me in a real bind

A simple answer is run qemu/vmware to power winbox, however this drains significant resources for such a little program

CLI/Web are also not always good answers as they do not allow for MAC telnet/discovery etc

Does anyone know if there is any plans to recompile the winbox.exe for 64bit? I suspect it would be a simple job to recompile but has not been completed as there was no good reason previously


PS. I hear Linux distros are also planning on removing 32bit support as well, doubt Windows will any time however

There is open source mac-telnet client for linux. Perhaps you could give it a try.

Sadly the mac-telnet client can not authenticate with new authentication mechanism.
Mikrotik does not give details what is required for encryption.
Compatibility with RouterOS 6.43

With macOS Catalina and Apples Catalyst it would be an easy step to port the newly introduced iOS Version of Winbox to macOS.
Even if the GUI Concept of the iOS Version is much different it would offer 64Bit Support and a native Application for macOS.
I hope MT will use this opportunity.

I would really need a 64-bit version of Winbox as well, to run on macOS 10.15 Catalina once it is released in around two months.
I actually think Winbox is the only 32-bit software that I rely on at this point, but without Winbox in a 64-bit version (or some sort of good work around) I would be stuck on 10.14 Mojave until that is solved.

I tried to run other 64-bit Windows software on Wine on the macOS Catalina Beta and it works perfectly as long as it is purely 64-bit, so if Mikrotik would just release a 64-bit version of Winbox for Windows, it would continue to run really well on macOS Catalina, just as it has for several years on macOS.

(Is anyone actually still running 32-bit Windows versions anymore by the way? Maybe it's even better to replace the 32-bit version entirely with a 64-bit version?)

If you need beta testers, Mikrotik, I would be happy to help with testing the 64-bit version, and report any bugs or problems with running it on Mac/Wine!

It's really so hard for your Mac to use a virtual machine running Windows XP and excecute Winbox?

Also exists lite versions of Windows XP. I can't see the problem.

Also you can try to run Windows XP 64 bit edition.

Regards.

It's really so hard for your Mac to use a virtual machine running Windows XP and excecute Winbox?

It's not hard to run Windows in a virtual machine, but it's just far less convenient to run a software that I use all the time, like Winbox, that way than the almost-native way I (and probably most other Mikrotik users on Mac) am running it right now on top of Wine, and that we will be able to continue doing if Mikrotik releases a 64-bit version of Winbox with no other changes.

As andrewlp said, the Linux world is moving in the same direction of slowly removing 32-bit support, so us Mac users are not alone in this problem, and this seems like a good time to do something about it and release a 64-bit version that solves all this for everyone.

It's really so hard for your Mac to use a virtual machine running Windows XP and excecute Winbox?

Also exists lite versions of Windows XP. I can't see the problem.

Also you can try to run Windows XP 64 bit edition.

Regards.

Is it really so hard for MikroTik to reply and advise why such horrible solutions must be used instead of a simple recompile?

The primary reason this is not really an option is its alot of unnessary overhead for an app that I run daily, the overhead causes significant power consumption on a laptop compared to a effectively native appliation

Another option would be for MikroTik to simply open up about how certain systems work and allow open source projects that aimed to build MAC-Telnet CLI programs for Linux etc, which worked great until MikroTik changed the code and refused to provide information on the authentication method

As mentioned here the problem is that wine itself won't run because of missing 32bit support in OS. In this situation, it doesn't matter if Winbox is 32bit or 64bit, WINE won't run at all.

We are currently looking into possible solutions for this issue and will update accordingly.

As mentioned here the problem is that wine itself won't run because of missing 32bit support in OS. In this situation, it doesn't matter if Winbox is 32bit or 64bit, WINE won't run at all.

Thanks for looking into it!

For information though, Wine does actually run on Catalina if you use the wine64 version of it. As I said, I have tried to run 64-bit Windows software on top of Wine in the Catalina Beta, and it works perfectly fine as long as it is pure 64-bit software.

You can try it by installing the Catalina Beta and install wine with homebrew (which works just like on Mojave and previous macOS versions), and then make sure to start it with the "wine64" command instead of just "wine". If you try to start it with the "wine" command it gives an error about bad CPU type, but the "wine64" command works just like before when launching 64-bit Windows software.

Same concern here, I use Mac and rely heavily on two 32bit applications, Winbox and Google Earth. Both of them will not work with the next update for Macs, therefore upgrading my machine is not possible for me at this moment. I really hope that Mikrotik will eventually make an UNIX based Winbox that would run on Linux and MacOS, the only systems that I actually use.

I fully agree on the need of either a native macOS-winbox or at least a 64-bit-compatible winbox-environment to run under macOS cataline. DEARLY waiting for it. running a full VM "just" to start winbox is not a nice option...

Let's not leave this post to die. I'm pretty sure that a lot of us use either MAC or Linux, and a "MACbox" or "Linuxbox" would be of great use for lots of us. I don't think that it's too much to ask for our dear developers.

Maybe I am too dumb but the latest Google Earth Pro seems to be 64bit and I am running Wine 4.0 stable on MacOS 10.14.6 and if I start winbox.exe with "wine64" I get the following in Activity Monitor:
So, that would not be enough in 10.15 ?

I want MacBox! I have updated to Catalina and now I have no access to my mikrotiks =-(

Please make native OSX Winbox. There are not downloaded DLL libraries since RouterOS v6, so it shouldn't be problem. Or release Winbox protocol description (it seems it is similar to API protocol). I will code it myself and will release it as GPL. RouterOS have huge community. Use it.

With macOS Catalina and Apples Catalyst it would be an easy step to port the newly introduced iOS Version of Winbox to macOS.
Even if the GUI Concept of the iOS Version is much different it would offer 64Bit Support and a native Application for macOS.
I hope MT will use this opportunity.

This. I think this is what we will see eventually. Although I prefer the 90s look of real WinBox.

Maybe I am too dumb but the latest Google Earth Pro seems to be 64bit and I am running Wine 4.0 stable on MacOS 10.14.6 and if I start winbox.exe with "wine64" I get the following in Activity Monitor:

Screenshot Wine Winbox 64.png

So, that would not be enough in 10.15 ?

No, when you run it with wine64 you run the wine process itself in 64-bit, but it can still run 32-bit code from the Windows application you launched when run that way under Mojave if i'm not mistaken.
Under Catalina you need both the Wine process to be 64-bit (which is solved with wine64), and the Windows application itself too, which is the problem with Winbox but works well with applications that is actually fully 64-bit. I tried it with a 64-bit build of Notepad++ for example, and that works as expected under Wine on Catalina as long as I launch it with the wine64 command.

On some level I would also want a Mac native client, but if the iOS client is simply ported over with the help of Catalyst, it would probably mean that we would lack important features like having several windows with different functions on the same router open at the same time (which is one of the awsome features that makes Winbox soo good, even if it looks 90s-like ).
At the moment the iOS client is great for being a mobile client, but far from as good as Winbox is on the desktop, and it would need to become better before a desktop version of it would be able to replace Winbox on Mac for most of us.

So at the moment we simply really need to have a 64-bit build of Winbox, and at least to me it would only be a nice bonus if Mikrotik is actually working on making a good Mac native client in one or the other way.

Ok, I fully agree. Haven't tested Catalina. Although it would be the easiest way for Mikrotik to just use the code of the iOS client for a native MacOC client, I hope that they release a 64Bit winbox.exe. I have configured a couple of sessions to different routers with hotspot, log, resources, interface and queue windows open at the same time. Great for monitoring and not possible with the iOS client.

I am also hoping for a Winbox64 version. I am not sure how reasonable it is to ask for it, since it will only be needed by macOS users. I am currently running Windows 10 in Parallels Desktop just to run Winbox (I upgraded to Catalina Beta pretty early on). This is a solution that works, but feels like a bit of an overkill for just one small application. I haven't looked at the iOS app yet. From what I am hearing it doesn't have all the features Winbox has.

Recently I started doing a lot on the CLI, so I don't have to start up a VM to run Winbox.

Perhaps the fine folks at MikroTik should consider doing a native macOS app and sell it through the Apple Store. I am in the market for a native app and would pay for it. Just don't make a subscription please

+ 1, please release a native OS X version! or at least port the iOS version.

As winbox user on OSX I really want a 64bit version too, I want to upgrade my macbook and it is complaining about unable to use the 32bit version of winbox (in wine) ..
A native version would be great too

Eddie

There are several cross-platform software toolkits. Using such a toolkit would allow for single sourcing the code but compiling on multiple platforms.

A lot of software these days don't support custom tools -- just create a robust and secure web browser interface. True cross-platform.

Contrary to most of the posters here I don't think MikroTik should create native macOS app or try to make a cross-platform one.

First of all choosing any of the options will mean they have to rewrite the existing app. From a software developer perspective I can tell anyone that this is no easy task, no matter how simple app seems to be. The current application is easy to use, robust, powerful, and serves the purpose perfectly - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Creating native application for every operating system means that the development is split. The cost of such process is much higher than keeping a single platform application. However, this is the smallest problem here. While the initial efforts are usually there, the continuing development diverges quickly - any user of Netflix or Plex can probably relate to that. Even companies where apps are essential for the product (e.g. DJI drones companion apps) struggle a lot in keeping the feature set and compatibility consistent.

In order to create truly universal app most often require usage of a web-based frameworks. Without going into specifics they're well... less than ideal and in practice hard to work with. Even giants like Spotify have significant problems and had to resort to developing native components after some time. This leads quickly to problems very similar if not the same as with maintaining applications for multiple platforms. Universal apps development looks great and handy-dandy until you actually try to develop a more robust or more advanced experience. We had this happen before, it was called Java and very few got it right.

To sum up I think what MT does is brilliant - offer a simple binary which is windows complaint without extensive hacks and rely on Wine to run it on other platforms. Wine is not bad at all - it can run software without problems as long as it doesn't use undocumented hacks. That's it.
The only problem now is 64 bit support - this is crucial and I hope MT will step up to the challange and offer (at least) a beta version which is a native 64-bit binary.

I fully agree with what @kiler129 wrote.

And I'll add: while I fully respect the personal preferences of users about OS (my choice is Linux) I also think that every professional has to adapt his toolbox to the tools needed/available for doing his job. And for administering network(s) of Mikrotik devices one of choices is winbox. Given constraints, appropriate toolbox for professional using winbox is ... well, a Windows laptop.

I agree with @kiler129 too.
Also, because Wine is as good as it is, Winbox is practically multi platform already, but without the downsides of having to actively develop for more than one platform.
So we don't need a new cross platform client or anything like that. 64-bit support for Winbox is all we need. Primarily for macOS right now, but it will almost certainly also be needed for some Linux distributions in a not too distant future (Ubuntu was really close recently, but they changed their minds for now).

About what @mkx wrote, I agree that the right OS for the job should of course be used. But, the problem is that Winbox is not the only software anyone is using, and at least for me the majority of tools I use for other tasks than administering Mikrotik devices either runs better on macOS then anywhere else, or doesn't run on anything else at all, so the right OS to run for me is macOS even if Winbox would probably run a tiny bit better on Windows, and I absolutely do a few things on my Mac that would be somewhat better on Linux as well.
This is why it's very important to get a 64-bit version out. Not everyone is in a situation where using Windows is a practical solution.

I agree with @kiler129 too.
Also, because Wine is as good as it is, Winbox is practically multi platform already, but without the downsides of having to actively develop for more than one platform.

If Winbox would support proper window scaling without messing up fonts I could live with it under Wine. Right now it is unusable on my 2560*1440 screens. And with 32bit support only it looks as if it has become too old-fashioned too move to a more modern world. Right now I can only use webfig, which is sufficient for my limited needs. But that misses an easy way to have multiple windows open.

It looks like high time that Mikrotik starts a (limited?) redesign (using a new Windows framework?) that solves the most important issues:
- Win64 support
- scaling support
Yes, I understand that redesign will not be easy and Mikrotik appears to have to few developers, but some redesign seems to be overdue

If Winbox would support proper window scaling without messing up fonts I could live with it under Wine. Right now it is unusable on my 2560*1440 screens. And with 32bit support only it looks as if it has become too old-fashioned too move to a more modern world. Right now I can only use webfig, which is sufficient for my limited needs. But that misses an easy way to have multiple windows open.

How are you running Winbox when you get that font issue? I sure agree that the fonts in Wine apps are not beautiful on a retina display on macOS, but it is far from as bad for me as what you describe.
The reason I ask how you are running Winbox is that I have previously had a problem with really bad font rendering in Wine on my Mac (not just Winbox, but anything I would run under Wine), and I found a workaround for that which might be interesting for you if what you are experiencing is that same problem.

I simply added the following to my command for launching Winbox, before the actual wine command: FREETYPE_PROPERTIES="truetype:interpreter-version=35"
After that, as an example, my command looks something like this: FREETYPE_PROPERTIES="truetype:interpreter-version=35" /usr/local/bin/wine64 ~/Applications/Mikrotik/winbox.exe
(I'm launching that with an Alfred workflow to just have to do cmd+space and start typing "winbox" or "mikrotik" and push enter to launch Winbox with this command, even though it's not actually a standard Mac application bundle. I could tell more about the details of that if anyone is interested.)

The reason that this workaround fixed the fonts issue for me, and might do the same for others, is that the font rendering issue has to do with changes in the Freetype library that Wine uses for its font rendering, and telling Freetype to behave like an older version of itself when rendering truetype fonts fixes it.

You may of course have a different problem than I had, but it might be worth I try.

Another thing to try could be to install Wine with Homebrew (https://brew.sh) instead of installing a standard package (if that's not already what you are doing). The version of Wine that you get by installing it that way does in my experience just generally work better. Drag and drop of files from Finder into the Files window in Winbox works perfectly for me for example (that usually doesn't work otherwise, at least not when I have tried it)

Well, end of the line for me. I just updated my MacOS to Catalina and said good bye to Winbox running on Wine. Tried installing the beta version of winehq 64 but had no success. If anyone here is in the same situation and had more luck than me please share your solution. Right now I'm using a VM to use Winbox, but I still think is a waste of resources just to open such a small application.

for now I'll just don't upgrade MacOS ...
Winbox on Wine works fine but is indeed a 32bit app.
I noticed that some guys @MT also use MacOS, so lets hope they will compile a 64bit version just because they need that for themselves ..

Eddie

I've got a small note from @normis that 64-bit winbox is not available yet. However, according to the e-mail they "(...) will work on that later this year"

For now the only way is using a virtualized environment. Wine64 will not solve the issue since there are two layers here: you need 64 bit native binary (wine) as well as the binary which is run (winbox) must be 64-bit. As the acronym states "Wine Is Not an Emulator" and thus if the OS kernel doesn't allow 32-bit code execution nothing AFAIK can be done.

Finally some light on this subject. Winbox is great, but unfortunately it's days are counted as it is now. I really hope that a 64bit version is close to us.

>> As the acronym states [i]"Wine Is Not an Emulator"[/i] and thus if the OS kernel doesn't allow 32-bit code execution nothing AFAIK can be done.

Codeweavers is working on a Crossover version that executes 32bit. But it seems to be hard.
https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs ... atalinayet

So we can bet who is winning the raise: 64bit Winbox or 32bit ability in Crossover.
But there is an IOS version - it should not be so complicated to make a MACBox on that base?

>> As the acronym states "Wine Is Not an Emulator" and thus if the OS kernel doesn't allow 32-bit code execution nothing AFAIK can be done.

Codeweavers is working on a Crossover version that executes 32bit. But it seems to be hard.
https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs ... atalinayet

So we can bet who is winning the raise: 64bit Winbox or 32bit ability in Crossover.
But there is an IOS version - it should not be so complicated to make a MACBox on that base?

That's it, specially with the new mechanism that allows developers to migrate iOS apps easier to macOS. I don't think the app is as good as Winbox, but it's a start.

I hope MikroTik will be able to produce 64-bit version sooner than later I can bet this is a relatively hard task as with any 10+ years old software - it's a moderate to big spaghetti for sure

The idea of using winbox from iOS on macOS is IMHO terrible. The iOS version is a toy and even the WebFig is way more powerful. The best part about winbox is support for multiple windows.

MacBOX !!!! Yea.... Now we're talking !!

Fellow Catalina user here with no working Winbox... I have dug out my old Windows XP laptop for now... I will keep tabs on this thread!

+1 for this. MacBox would be great. I am having to downgrade my Macbook to get round this limitation. Please help!

Cheers

+1 for a winbox for macOS and 64.

Thanks!

+1 for a WinBox for macOS.

+1 for a WinBox for macOS.

I just updated my mac to catalina and guess what, I'm f***
Constant rebooting to bootcamp or starting virtual windows just for winbox is not really an option.

For some hope... Crossover is expecting an alpha release of Wine that will include the required 32bit thunking

https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs ... ber-3-2019

If you use CrossOver for macOS, this information is VERY IMPORTANT for you.

Earlier today, Apple released the new macOS Catalina. Catalina does not support 32-bit applications. Currently, CrossOver still uses pieces of 32-bit code for every function and will not launch or install any Windows apps in Catalina. If CrossOver is critical to you macOS experience, we ask that you wait on upgrading to Catalina until we release a Catalina compatible version.

At this time, we anticipate that an alpha version will be available sometime in the next 30 days. We will continue to update you as development progresses.

+1 for native OSX "Winbox" ... I cannot access my routers...

+1 for native OSX (MacBox)

Adding those pluses is not helping anyone, we are aware of the issues in Catalina.
We already have started to work on wine64 support

+1 for MacBox/Winbox for macOS.


... Pretty please?

[edit] Just saw that @normis and I commented around the same time. +1 is for motivation, but also for me to follow the thread.

Following this post for updates! I'm hopeful!

- Heavy winbox user who upgraded without reading about 32bit architecture changes. Ouch!

We already have started to work on wine64 support

Thanks a lot for that! I'm looking forward to the release of it!

One alternative for Mac users, for now, could be to use X11 forwarding via SSH to a linux box:

• Setup a minimal install of linux (dedicated server or VM)
• Install Wine, Wine32, and OpenSSH Server
• Configure SSH server to allow X11 forwarding
• Download winbox to the linux server/VM
• Install XQuartz on Mac
• Connect to linux install using SSH -X user@server

Forward GUI, process runs on linux box, no restrictions. A Parallels or VirtualBox VM of a minimal linux install should use less resources than any Windows install, yes?

So everyone came here for x64 support on mac. Why don't just make a 64bit winbox for mac rather than stick to the windows version? It would be more beautiful in design, and run natively in mac it would be faster then run from wine.

So everyone came here for x64 support on mac.

Just because Mac users are more vocal it doesn't mean that there aren't non-Mac (and non-Win) users who would appreciate 64-bit windows app for runnig in their wine (or other wine-like) environment. Unless Mikrotik somehow decide to support a few OS platforms natively. Which I don't find likely and until this changes windows binary is the most universal of all (e.g. I'm not aware of Mac emulator/loader/... for any other platform ... but I've never searched for it either).

Why don't just make a

If it were that easy, we would have done it

Maybe it will be simpler to write Winbox for Chrome?

It will be multiplatfrom like UBNT Disovery.

We already have Webfig for Chrome

Why don't just make a

If it were that easy, we would have done it

rebuild for 64 bits in the development environment, I do not understand what's complicated.

only the compiler must rebuild from 32 to 64. The code does not change.

If it were that easy, we would have done it

I know you guys will need to rewrite it from scratch for x64 support and for Mac too. But that is something to consider. An app for MAC to run natively I think it can be possible since Mikrotik is well-known company. I'm one of Mac user that bring my MBP and monitor the router over WAN. The webfig is not very nice to play with.

But hope you guys find a solution for MAC user.

Good luck running that "just rebuild in 64bit environment" in wine64. Timur, don't think so lowly of us.

Timur, don't think so lowly of us.

No of course. I'm not a saint either. It’s just been known for a long time that MacOS 10.15 does not work with 32 bit applications.

After upgrading MacOS to catalina, all 32bit apps not work. Winbox is a problem also.
need official Winbox for Macos running at 64bit.

Please Mikrotik, make the 64bit version of Winbox available or make a native application of Winbox for Mac OS as millions of Mac OS users are not using Winbox.

Another +1 for a MacBox version of Winbox!

Can we get any kind of indication of Timeline for x64 Winbox release? Wondering how far along in the development process the engineers are.
Is a release several days/weeks/months away? Needing to buy a windows machine if we're talking about Months as opposed to Weeks.

Adding those pluses is not helping anyone, we are aware of the issues in Catalina.
We already have started to work on wine64 support

Hi @Normis,

as we're stuck, how long will it take to adapt and recompile winbox in 64bit mode?

Kind regards.

Federico

Can we get any kind of indication of Timeline for x64 Winbox release? Wondering how far along in the development process the engineers are.
Is a release several days/weeks/months away? Needing to buy a windows machine if we're talking about Months as opposed to Weeks.

+1
do I buy windows machine/parallels/etc etc
or do I wait?

if you've got any idea of roadmap dates that would be great

+1 for native OSX (MacBox)

Can we get any kind of indication of Timeline for x64 Winbox release? Wondering how far along in the development process the engineers are.
Is a release several days/weeks/months away? Needing to buy a windows machine if we're talking about Months as opposed to Weeks.

+1
do I buy windows machine/parallels/etc etc
or do I wait?

if you've got any idea of roadmap dates that would be great

I'm using parallels (free trial). Its a good software (macOS integration) but a waste of resources if using it just for Winbox.

Another Idea is to write a WebAssembly Applet of Winbox. By doing this MK could elimate the need for the Webadmin.
This would solve many issues:
- Cross plattform
- No need to install additional software. It could be started right from any modern Browser loaded from MK device
- Native code, protected source

I dont know if Winbox is based on Qt for the GUI, but if it uses Qt there is a webassembly library for Qt available.

// 32768

+1 For MacBox!

I also use a MacBook for MikroTik because my Windows laptop battery finish in less 2 hours =(
Hope to get a solution soon as i have updated all the Macs in the office except my own MacBook

+1 have big trouble after MacOS update...

+1 for native OSX (MacBox), please

Good luck running that "just rebuild in 64bit environment" in wine64. Timur, don't think so lowly of us.

Hi !

Iam aware that it is not just rebuild.
The point is, that Mikrotik company, all these years rely only on Windows main config tool.
Why should i have windows in the first place?

You should see this is coming, much earlier, and be ready for this.
WebFig and Androip app is useless for complex setup.
MikroTik is mainly used by professionals and semi-professionals, ordinary people buy Dlink , TPLink , Asus which is click-click GUI.
I really dont need webfig and andriod app.

Your main product is Linux based, a great product, but your main configuration tool is windows based, all these years.
That really has no common sense. Today, there are multi-platform tools and make Winbox for all platforms to run natively.

I have sold hundreds ( maybe even more ) of your devices, but in the last year or two i use UniFi more and more, especially in the WiFi.
You are lagging behind, in almost all areas.

Right now, iam using a LOT of Cambium equipment for Wifi4EU municipalities and cities, because you don have a single wifi device that conform those required specs. Shame !

Please, wake up, and listen to common sense, stop making useless products, better focus on Wave2, High Density wifi devices, for example.
Capsman is so bad, that it is wonder how it is bad. Please buy one Cloud Key from UBNT, and see how they done it. Nice and easy.

Iam pissed at MikroTik.

Best regards !

+1 for native OSX (MacBox)

In theory I agree with the idea that the focus should be put on WebFig. However, WinBox is just so nice to use, especially for things like Torch and having multiple windows open for troubleshooting.

WinBox and "The Dude" need an overhaul to use better toolkits for the front-end e.g. QT

This will make keeping them up to date, and adding new features (Spectral Scan/Waterfall) type

I'll chime in to keep this thread busy. I would be happy with any solution, 64-bit WinBox would do. Everything beyond that is welcome, of course.

Step one everyone: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=152795&p=754827#p754824
Version will soon follow.