Hi @Ruba,

I don't get it, I mean, the Bitdefender UI covers half of my desktop and the text has the right size and is easy to read, but that's just my opinion.

I see. But what screen resolution do you use, exactly?

I mean, if they were to make it bigger than this, I think it would cover the entire screen for the majority of users and I don't know if that would be ideal. Next to this would be having Bitdefender in full screen..

Also, since this thread was posted, there have been some minor changes in the UI, albeit unrelated to resizing. Earlier in January this year, the developers applied the following changes:

• Rounded corners and a more visible delimitation of the interface limits on light mode;
• More visible branding in the title bar;
• Light mode refresh that adheres to the brand's evolving design guidelines;
• For microinteractions: animated status icon, animated menu transitions, subtle animation for the menu icons;
• Autopilot recommendations with a dismissable interface and better transitions between them and also confirmation feedback on the positive cta.

However, this is not to be considered a major overhaul of the UI. I can't say more about resizing options, but I assume their absence has to do with some implications in performance and usability. This interface is designed to be simple and straightforward for all users, including those without technical expertise. Allowing users to resize the UI could result in cluttered or poorly arranged elements that make it harder to access important features, thereby degrading usability. As it is, the fixed size ensures that buttons, alerts, and options are always properly aligned and easy to navigate.

And surely there are more implications to this. Allowing dynamic resizing could increase the complexity of the software, requiring additional resources to redraw the interface at different sizes, especially when running alongside resource-heavy tasks like real-time scanning or threat analysis. Thus, keeping the interface static optimizes performance and ensures the software operates efficiently without unnecessary strain on system resources. Also, the UI should maintain a consistent user experience across different devices and screen sizes.

So, from my point of view, I don't see resizing to be a problem that would impair usage, but I do understand your arguments and perspective. I think a fixed-size UI is designed to strike a balance between functionality, ease of use, and security for the majority of users, across the multitude of different devices and display resolutions.

Regards,

Alex

Hi @BAV

This thread also has some feedback regarding resizing the UI, as well as a wider scroll bar, which IMO, is still too narrow (has not been changed).

There has also been a request to make the VPN window resizable.

Regards

Sorry but I just don't buy it Alexandru, especially when it is heavily hampering the control of the program. My counter argument then is, if you want a fixed size, it could have been redesigned to be a larger, more usable fixed size, 100 times and then some by now over the years. It is the most arbitrary thing to do with coders of your skill set who create a program to protect the entire computer, and the GUI is simple to begin with.. it is not a complicated task, relatively speaking. So keep it one size, sure, just make it nice and big. Or even better, standard size and full screen. That's a simpler solution, two sizes.

What that reply actually means is that you just couldn't be bothered, because every other program on my computer, over 350 of them, all have adjustable interface size and many of them are way more complex than BD, in fact Kaspersky is a perfect example which has legions of info and every window and sub window is infinitely resizable.

So I have to suspend disbelief to the point that for some reason, ONLY BD can't implement it efficiently. LOL.

It's actually torture to scroll, the inertia is wrong with a precision touchpad, the side bar is too small to easily grab, and EVERYTHING requires scrolling. I hope BD take criticism constructively and won't ban me for speaking out, but nevertheless I feel I have to cause it's just terrible. A gorgeous, easy to use interface completely ruined by its mini size. It's nonsensical to me and has been a thorn in my side since I first used the program in 2020.

PS just think about that for a moment. EVERY other program on my machine is infinitely adjustable, including things like pro tools which is a very complex app. Heck, even individual plugins for pro tools are resizable these days and everything just auto scales cause they are coded correctly.

You could beta a larger interface option for those game enough to try it out, as I said just leave it at the size it is for those who are happy and a simple maximise option, and let us be testers and assume the risk. I'd sign up day one and finally stop constantly looking at different security products.

This, from Alex above reply:

This is not about laziness or the lack of means to do it, and although some antiviruses may provide the option to resize the UI, not all of them are built in the same way, meaning that what applies for some AV out there cannot be mirrored for Bitdefender and vice-versa, due to its unique structure and other factors.

If it were to be something that would cause instability due to coding, allowing the app in full screen, then I'm for leaving it alone. I've noticed over the last 6 months? where we as volunteers haven't had to offer a Repair as often as we have had to in the past, to help with some of the issues posted. So if Bitdefender is, and seems to be more stable, let's leave that alone. At least the wider scroll bar seems to be in the works, which I and others will be happy with😊

Oh, and I get it. Even on this notebook with a display of 1920 x 1080 I was wanting to grab a corner of the Bitdefender UI to help enlarge it when answering a post this weekend. I'm also running ESET on another notebook and am used to enlarging it, as well as my past experience with F-Secure.

But, Bitdefender is a different animal (also see all the running Processes) and I've learned that when we get as thorough of a reply as posted above, it's not going to happen. It's just what we get with Bitdefender. But if it can do its job that I paid for it to do, then it really isn't that much of a deal breaker for me. And if not tweaking it keeps it stable, I'm okay with that, too. In my case, I have two different AV subscriptions going for each of their protection and feature abilities. It adds a little AV comparison and interest in my life :)

Cheers :)

BTW this is the happiest I have ever been with BD.

1. The issue I had last time I tested a demo a year or so back when it slowed any gen 4 ssd to gen 4 ssd (both internal pcie) file transfers to 200 mb/s, even large contiguous files, and disabling BD instantly meant the speed went to 5000+, has been resolved. Disk speeds being tested on the same computer are back to normal with BD enabled.
2. BD did hose my computer in 2021, it was a travesty and what scared me the most and made me leave it, as up to that point I had been happy with it. I actually want to talk to some others about what happened and see if anyone has experienced it in the last few years, and I know this is the wrong forum area to post about it. Any ideas which would be the best forum section to ask such a thing? Basically BD got stuck in a false detection loop, the screen went grey and every time I clicked OK, no matter what the next file was, everything was infected according to BD. After about 100 files and clicking OK, I couldn't take it anymore and forced shutdown with the power button. On reboot, Kaspersky offline, Malwarebytes and Emsisoft all said the computer was 100% clean. And I know it was, as it was a fairly new install that had nothing dodgy on it and BD had been enabled since day one, and all I was doing was changing folder view options in windows 10 explorer when this happened, BD suddenly went berserk. The amount of damage it caused to drivers and the operation of the OS was too much to easilyu fix so I had to format and reinstall from scratch. That scared me senseless as I had never seen such a thing since first using an AV in the 90's (VET AV back then). It was definitely a false detection loop it got completely stuck in where it thought every single file on the machine was infected. So I'd really like an opportunity to talk about this and have my mind eased before I purchase, so would appreciate knowing which sub forum would be the best to talk about this.

Ultimately, I am not thrilled with the small display, but BD has been great since I installed it yesterday and it does WHAT I want out of a security suite. No forced VPN install. Check. Proper 2 way firewall, check. Webcam and mic control, check. Ransomware repair, check. It ticks all the boxes for me besides the screen size. Performance has been great so far also.

Hi, it's actually just a laptop panel, but it's 4K. So it's a 17" panel with 3840x2160 resolution, 16:9 ratio, but as you can see the graphics are scaling correctly and readable, so it's clear Bit Defender is high DPI aware. That said, what I might do is play with the DPI scaling in BD application properties and set it to system enhanced and see if that makes it any bigger. Thanks for the info re general forum, will try that tomorrow as I am going to sleep now, it's 10pm here and I am old LOL.

Thank you for taking the time to write this comprehensive feedback, it is greatly appreciated!

15% must be an improvement, I must say, good job. That's a nice workaround. 😃

And last but not least, thank you for choosing Bitdefender, and you are more than welcome in our community anytime! 🤝