To stay updated on your favorite discussions, please create an account or log in. Then, click the Bookmark icon to subscribe and receive notifications.

Colors in Policy Manager 12.10



I understand that CI is very important for every company ... and that F-Secure brands its software ...

but the color selection  in the policy manager are - I have to be polite - not the best choice ...


Who selected that turquoise color for highlighting and messages 


is there a way to change them?


  • hyvokar
    hyvokar W/ Alumni Posts: 165 Junior Protector

    Congratulations for making  even worse looking UI in 12.10. I didnt know it was possible, but sure enough, you proved me wrong again. 


    Please bring back the colors and layout from 2 years back. This current acid trip color scheme gives me serious head ache.

  • hyvokar
    hyvokar W/ Alumni Posts: 165 Junior Protector

    Also, your top bar is now approx 100 pixels in height for no apparrent reason. Could you make it any smaller?

  • hyvokar
    hyvokar W/ Alumni Posts: 165 Junior Protector


    Also, could you make those minimize, maximize, close buttons back visible again?

  • TKV
    TKV W/ Alumni Posts: 6 Security Scout

    Agreed, this current UI is a throwback to pre-OSX Macs and not in a good way. It is also quite wastefull in terms of screenspace, the Policy Managers we manage are usually located on virtual machines and those usually do not have the huge screenspace of modern desktops.


    The role of central management software is to be functional, currently that has been considerably reduced to suit the needs of "modernized" UI look.

  • Ben
    Ben W/ Alumni Posts: 664 Cybercrime Crusader

    Hi all, 


    Thank you for your honest feedbacks. I forwarded them internally.



  • hello Ben,


    great, that you forward it internally.


    Meanwhile - is there a way to change the colors manually? Perhaps in a config file? 




  • field_is_too_sh
    field_is_too_sh W/ Alumni Posts: 8 Security Scout

    I wouldn't want to revert back to the version 11 UI, since that was a bit grim too.


    There are a number of things that do need correcting, though.


    The huge title bar is exceptionally pointless. I'm tired of all the prima donnas who think that they are above using native Windows title bars. In fact, UltraMon doesn't even detect that FSPMC has a title bar, so the extra title bar buttons don't appear. Windows native title bars have important visual cues (is this window focused?) that are lost when developers are too haughty to use them. Literally the only cue as to whether FSPMC is focused or not is the shade of grey of the controls at the top right.


    Seriously, people: I tell Windows what colour I want everything. That decision is mine to make globally, not for programs to ignore.


    The program's icon is still generic instead of specific to that program. I also don't get why all the toolbar icons are glued together -- it's like all the space in between them has been relocated into the gigantic title bar.


    File Open/Save dialog boxes are no longer anything remotely native. If you paste a path into the filename box and press enter, instead of navigating to that path and restoring the name that was originally present, nothing happens. I know that we're stuck in Java with everything this entails (completely broken taskbar pinning, memory bloat etc) but there are far better Open/Save dialog box implementations for Java, so I have no idea why we're now given some atrocious version, one that must be the worst one I've ever seen for Java. I would have thought that Java would allow native dialogs now (since both XUL and GTK+ do) but I guess not.


    As an aside, I notice that FSPMS 12 and/or FSPMC 12 is dramatically faster than 11 — a night and day difference.

  • hyvokar
    hyvokar W/ Alumni Posts: 165 Junior Protector

    I didnt notice any difference in speed. It still takes some 5-10minutes to fire up the console.


    Anyway, one more thing FS MUST fix. The computer icons previously told us the OS of the machine. Now the OS version has been written after the computer icon which is taking waaaaayyyy too much space.

  • field_is_too_sh
    field_is_too_sh W/ Alumni Posts: 8 Security Scout

    I can click Root then Alerts and see them all in around 1–2 seconds. Viewing global installation status takes around one second. The improvement in speed is incredible — no more "Waiting for the server" for ages (in the past these steps could take several minutes). We have 325 hosts in total, and from entering my password to loading completion, I only wait five seconds (maybe more if we discount disc cache) on a Core i5-2400 in Windows 10. To get a 10-minute load time, I assume you must have a lot more hosts?


    I'm uncertain about the OS status icons. It bothered me at first, but I realise that I paid little attention to that data anyway. The new way of showing it is rather odd, though, but strangely enough, I'm OK with it.


    The "Hosts outside the domain tree" panel is useful, too, as normally you'd never see it. (I don't recall seeing that until just now ... how weird.)

  • Hi,


    I have around 1200 Hosts in my PolicyManager - and the Admin console opens in less that 20sec (time from clicking the icon and including password entry and selecting the desired policymanager) ...


    i think, there is something wrong with your installation if it takes 5-10min to open ...




  • hyvokar
    hyvokar W/ Alumni Posts: 165 Junior Protector

    Seems like a disk issue. Memory and CPU utilization is pretty low on the server, but disk queue length while loading is around three. 


    I have ~2000 clients connected.


    Just clocked it, and it took 6mins for admin console to open after enterin password.


    Any idea, if pmc is capable of using multiple CPUs?


  • Hi,


    just checked it now ...


    20sec from click on icon to Logon Windows

    12sec from password until console is open


    Policymanager is on an Windows 2012 R2 VM on our VMware farm.

    VM has 2 vCPUs and 4GB ram

    Disc Queue around 0.2 while loading


    in Total over 1200 systems including our branch offices worldwide

  • field_is_too_sh
    field_is_too_sh W/ Alumni Posts: 8 Security Scout

    Our PMS runs on Debian Linux 8.5 32-bit, running in an ESXi 5.1 VM. CPU usage is fairly constant at 14% average, across two virtual cores (the physical CPUs are Xeon E5530 2.4 GHz). Disk usage is fairly close to zero at all times, but opening PMC caused the disc read rate to rise to 900 kb/sec for a few seconds; this did not occur when I closed and re-opened it, suggesting that everything it needed was cached in RAM. Memory consumed is at 3 GB flat (the allocation for that virtual server), but active memory is 256 MB on average.


    Looking at Process Explorer on my own PC, the CPU usage graphs suggest that most of the delay is on the client PC. On my PC, PMC tends to load so fast that I can't get reliable CPU usage information. javaw.exe creates a lot of threads, far more than there are CPU cores, and during loading there are plenty of active threads. As such, the loading process does appear to be able to make pretty good usage of your CPU cores. I/O figures (general, network and disc) are all very low, suggesting that CPU is the only constraint for PMC on my PC.

  • so ... looks like it is Linux/Debian/Java related ... under Windows ... no problem (as on your client)

  • field_is_too_sh
    field_is_too_sh W/ Alumni Posts: 8 Security Scout

    I'm not sure that anyone is actually testing this interface. If you have a top taskbar, and you maximise the window, it maximises to the correct size, but vertically offset by the height of the taskbar. This is a new bug created in 12.20.


    I don't know why the developers are going as far as they can out of their way to not just use a native window. Is Java really such an abomination that you can't have a native title bar on a window, and a native maximise behaviour? I would have thought that a native frame would be the one single thing that you'd be guaranteed from a Java framework (with native title bar, window shadow, and maximise).

This discussion has been closed.