6 ms·
I prefer well-designed desktop applications to web applications for most things that don't naturally involve the web: * Email clients (I use Thunderbird) * Of
by bhauer 6y ago
I prefer well-designed desktop applications to web applications for most things that don't naturally involve the web:
* Email clients (I use Thunderbird)
* Office suites
* Music and media players
* Maps
* Information managers (e.g., password managers)
* Development tools
* Personal productivity tools (e.g., to-do lists)
* Games
As Windows starts on-boarding their unified Electron model (I can't recall what they have named this), I suspect we'll see more lightweight Electron desktop apps. But for the record, I like purpose built, old-fashioned desktop applications. I prefer traditional desktop applications because:
* Traditional applications economize on display real-estate in ways that modern web apps rarely do. The traditional desktop application uses compact controls, very modest spacing, and high information density. While I have multiple monitors, I don't like the idea of wasting an entire monitor for one application at a time.
* Standard user interface elements. Although sadly falling out of favor, many desktop applications retain traditional proven high-productivity user interface elements such as drop-down menus, context menus, hotkeys, and other shortcuts.
* Depth of configuration. Traditional desktop apps tended to avoid the whittling of functionality and customization found in mobile and web apps. Many can be customized extensively to adapt to the tastes and needs of the user.
Bottom-line: Yes, for some users and use-cases, it still makes sense to make desktop apps. It may be a "long-tail" target at this point, but there's still a market.
- pretendscholar 6y agoWhat is your maps desktop application?
- bhauer 6y agoI just use Maps that ships with Windows.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- WilliamEdward 6y agoEmail doesn't naturally involve the web? What?
- rpeden 6y agoEmail over ARPANET and the internet predates the web by a couple of decades. The way we use email hasn't really changed that much since the 70s.
- yliu 6y agoRay Tomlinson's design for email came in the 70s. RFC 788 (SMTP) was published in 1981. Email predates the Web, and, imo, has been made much worse by all the Web-adjacent features shoved into it.
- PNWChris 6y agoI believe they’re referring to the web as port 80/443 http(s) traffic. It’s the old World Wide Web vs internet distinction, if you will. Email really is just a protocol for message sending, and it lives on it’s own port with its own server. If you have an email client and access to an email server (POP/SMTP/however), you can use email over the internet but without the “web”. Basically, the web email client ought not be the only email client.
- WilliamEdward 6y agoIt was the ambiguity of the word 'web' that tripped me up. You still need a network of computers for email to be useful.
- macintux 6y agoI don’t think you’ll find many people here who agree that “web” is ambiguous.
- Jtsummers 6y ago`Web`[0] is shorthand for `World Wide Web` which is specifically about HTTP/HTTPS and/or the applications built on that protocol. It is an entirely unambiguous word in this context. `Internet`[1] is distinct, and that's the general purpose network of networks that you refer to which the Web is built on top of. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
- kick 6y agoThunderbird isn't a native app, for the record. It's a web application similar to an Electron application, but with extra steps.
- monocasa 6y agoEh. XUL isn't really a web technology the same way as Electron.
- kick 6y agoIt's not XUL anymore, actually, as far as I know. That's why it ripped out support for XUL addons.
- monocasa 6y agoFirefox has been ripping out xul, but Thunderbird still appears to support it.
- kick 6y agoOnly if you're using a ridiculously outdated copy: changed Add-on support: Add-ons are only supported if add-on authors have adapted them changed Dictionary support: Only WebExtension dictionaries are supported now. Both addons.mozilla.org and addons.thunderbird.net now provide WebExtension dictionaries. changed Theme support: Only WebExtension themes are supported now. Both addons.mozilla.org and addons.thunderbird.net now provide WebExtension themes. https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/68.0/releasenotes/ https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/68.0/releaseno...
- monocasa 6y agoLiterally here's a doc explaining how XUL has changed as of Thunderbird 68, the most recent version, released about a month and a half ago. Yes, some elements have been removed, but others have been modified and still exist. https://developer.thunderbird.net/add-ons/updating/tb68/changes https://developer.thunderbird.net/add-ons/updating/tb68/chan... And that's in the add-on documentation, not even just internal development docs. Also, describing information changed in the most recent stable release, a month and a half ago, hardly qualifies any older as "ridiculously outdated ".
- Droobfest 6y agoThis is a big part of why I still use MacOS. The mail, notes and reminder apps are simple, easy, fast and can be used with third party providers like Fastmail. The Windows apps are fairly sluggish by comparison. I prefer most native MacOS apps in general, Finder/Explorer is a big exception though.
- coronadisaster 6y ago> Thunderbird The search is not very good on Thunderbird...
- RachelF 6y agoit's still better than Outlook!