Well, mind you guys that when I said it looks pretty green to me and that I envision more tropical/jungle environments, I'm not thinking of something like what-ever-that-planet-was-called (Pandora?) from the movie Avatar. Please understand, I'm not asking why the Greenhouse pop isn't closer to that of Terran... I'm just thinking that it'd make more sense (with the way I'm looking at it) to have the numbers between Greenhouse and Ferrus swapped.
But given the "distance" from the planet with the screenie (and the obvious not perfect representation/quality graphics), it's hard for me (personally) to say those are green "igneous surface rocks" and not hills/mountains poking up from everything else with vegetation of some sort on it. And actually, depending on the camera angle, etc, there are areas of that greenish/white that give way to pale blue.
The way I view a Ferrus world, is that it isn't much different from that of a Barren world, just a much higher metal content in it (like, 75%+). And barren worlds are devoid of everything... including atmosphere (<- I base that, in part, on Advent having research for Barren worlds that mentions adding "specialized atmospheric shields" for increasing the livable area). But, as Goa pointed out, Ferrus worlds would probably be richer ($), too.
Eh, either way, it's definitely nothing that I see as "game breaking" or even a problem... I was just curious. And from asking here and seeing your responses, I will admit it's starting to make a little bit more sense.
EDIT: Oh, and just to put this in there, seems I already made one movie comparison... when I think of a Ferrus world's surface, the image that comes to mind is similar to that of Crematoria in Chronicles of Riddick... only, you know, without the extreme heat.