I've been using Mikrotik Products for over 10 years now and the only real gripe I have is the Winbox and Web UI. It hasn't changed in that same amount of time. Just seems counter intuitive and complicated. Would love to see an updated UI.

Both varieties of GUI closely follow CLI with regard to structure of configuration tree ... which makes it very convenient to exchange configuration advisories ... because it doesn't matter which xUI somebody uses. There have been some attempts to create simplified UI (such as QuickSet) which works for certain use cases. There are a few things configured in a slightly counter-intiutive manner (such as VLAN stuff or bridge with its dual personality), but GUI as a whole is great for power-users because it doesn't hide/take away anything.

Hence my 5c: don't completely overhaul UI, some minor changes would do.

If you have at least basic understanding of network stuff, then WinBox is intuitive, the structure is mostly logical and you can configure almost anything you want. Some things can be improved (like already mentioned bridge vlans), but otherwise it's perfect, sitting nicely between all-powerfull raw Linux and some dumbed down UIs you can see everywhere else. I can understand that someone may want it simpler, but the challenge is how to do it and not limit possibilities. Look at tons of simple routers where you can configure few basic things, and if you want anything "advanced", you can't have it. No thanks.

I also agree that the GUI of Winbox is extremely intuitive (also agreeing than bridges, switches, and VLANs are the exception). The structure is very logical, and how they efficiently cram almost all available options into the GUI is pretty impressive overall.

I come from 20 years of Cisco, HP, and other CLI interfaces. Cisco and HP have tried to have GUIs over the years but they tend to be so limiting and slow one down when configuring, so not many people use them. I believe Mikrotik is the first product where when I've had a choice between CLI or GUI, I choose GUI. The only exception is for initial router configs, I have a template starting config which I adjust, then import. After that, 99% of my work is done in the GUI.

What specifics in primarily most cases for all intents and purposes do you basically broadly find to effectively sort of be elementally exceptionally defective for the user interface?

Like the others who have posted, I have very very issues with WinBox (what I normally use for most purposes). I find it easy to work with. It is FAR better than the GUI for the Juniper routers we have at work.

I use my MT routers strictly as routers (no switch functionality, but lots of VLANs), so the bridge and switch functions, I have never used, but reading the forum, I gather there might be some room for improvement.

Do you have specifics of what you would like to see improved?

Concur with others, unless the op has specifics its only a troll and waste of a thread.

I do agree that it is easy to setup and configure for most things. However, When I'm working with someone who has never used MT then it is a different story. I've been using it long enough to know my way around it. But I do stumble from time to time. Setting up a VPN, VLANs, advanced wireless setups, etc. I love unifi routers and controller. It's really easy, the flip side is I have MT routers that have been in the field for years with no issues which I definitely can't say that about unifi. And you can forget advanced network configurations and even some basic ones. Forget unifi if you need to configure multiple WAN IP addresses. I guess it's a give and take. I sale, stock, install, configure, and support both brands but I personally use MT. Got the RB4011 at my house. I haven't had to restart it once since I upgraded from my RB2011. That said, still think they could modernize it some. Take advantage of higher resolution screens and modern graphics.

For beginners we suggest using our smartphone apps, they have simplified main menu and even a wizard.

Yeah, I beta tested it for over a year. It's not bad. Still like to have everything on a bigger screen. But thanks.

It's quite different from the beta, there are many user-friendly changes in the public version. I think only power users need more options and the bigger screen, so those user groups separate nicely. Big screen, many options, GUI matches CLI. And then home users, who prefer phones for everything, less options, simple UI.

Hi Guys,
I do agree that setting up and configuring most things is relatively easy. However, introducing MikroTik to someone unfamiliar with it can be a different experience. While I've navigated it for a while now and have a good grasp, I do encounter stumbling blocks occasionally, especially with tasks like setting up VPNs, VLANs, or complex wireless configurations.
story saver
I appreciate the simplicity of Unifi routers and their controller system. They're user-friendly, unlike MikroTik, which I've had deployed in the field for years without issues—a testament to their reliability. Unifi, on the other hand, falls short when it comes to advanced network setups, including basic configurations like handling multiple WAN IP addresses. It seems there's a trade-off between ease of use and robust functionality.

Like others have said, I LOVE how simply everything translates between CLI and GUI, whether it be Winbox or Webfig. There is practically nothing you can do from CLI but not GUI.

If you have ever done any networking in Linux, it all makes a lot more sense. If you are coming from the Windows side of things, you are likely to get lost quickly. I think that is the biggest stumbling block for most new users. Either that or just minimal general networking knowledge. I know *I* thought I was decent at networking until I started configuring my first Mikrotik! That said, I think using Mikrotik actively HELPED my learning, not hindered it.

That said, aside from agreeing with others about vlans, bridges, switching... Here are some specific ideas I would like to see implemented in the GUI. Mostly shamelessly stolen from my 2nd favorite routing appliance, Barracuda NG firewalls.

1- The ability to group sets of firewall rules. It is a little thing, and I get by just commenting the first rule in a set of rules. No effect at all on functionality, but the ability to put a "heading" Above a group of rules: "Communications between Branch and Local Office" type of thing...

2- Another display tweak - A set of "sub-tabs" for Chains. Essentially just a tab for each chain, including any custom chains you create. You can get mostly the same effect using filters, but tabs would be much simpler to switch back and forth between.

3- This one would be a bit more functionally intense to create, but - Some kind of more generic object reference database. Think address lists on steroids. By default they could be populated with standard ports for various protocols (IMAP, SMTP, HHTTP/S, etc.) Bonus points for being able to create recursive objects (An entry named "Stuff I use" which references IMAP, SFTP, SIP, Syslog, and SMB, so I can just reference that one object in a rule, rather than listing each of them independently, or worse having to create multiple otherwise identical rules for each of those services.) Other "objects" I could see utilizing: Users, networks or named networks, VLANs, schedules, and most of the things there are already lists for (Interface lists, address lists, etc.) ANYWAY, some kind of central place to create and manage different types of objects, which can then be refenced where appropriate in different rules.

3- This one would be a bit more functionally intense to create, but - Some kind of more generic object reference database. Think address lists on steroids. By default they could be populated with standard ports for various protocols (IMAP, SMTP, HHTTP/S, etc.) Bonus points for being able to create recursive objects (An entry named "Stuff I use" which references IMAP, SFTP, SIP, Syslog, and SMB, so I can just reference that one object in a rule, rather than listing each of them independently, or worse having to create multiple otherwise identical rules for each of those services.) Other "objects" I could see utilizing: Users, networks or named networks, VLANs, schedules, and most of the things there are already lists for (Interface lists, address lists, etc.) ANYWAY, some kind of central place to create and manage different types of objects, which can then be refenced where appropriate in different rules.

I think you've described X.400 and an LDAP server...