3 ms·

Teams is electron too, and really hungry on battery, and slow, and only recently re-added the ability to open chats in separate windows (ability lost when migra

by weikju 6y ago

Teams is electron too, and really hungry on battery, and slow, and only recently re-added the ability to open chats in separate windows (ability lost when migrating from Skype for Business), and even that is slow and clunky and only for individual chats, not for group chats or "channels"....

userbinator 6y ago
There are third-party native Slack clients, but I'm not sure if anyone has made an attempt at doing the same for Teams? ability lost when migrating from Skype for Business ...which also used to be native code (like the original Skype). It's really disappointing to see that Microsoft, of all companies, seems to have no interest in writing a native Win32 client for its own service, and instead effectively strengthens Google's monopoly by using its browser engine.
- sofixa 6y ago
  > It's really disappointing to see that Microsoft, of all companies, seems to have no interest in writing a native Win32 client for its own service And another one for macOS, and another one for Linux distros. Teams would have never become as popular if it was Windows-only, and doing frontend code 3 times for some slight advantages in speed and resource utilisation is textbook waste of money.
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    The recurring tragedy of UI toolkits... The fact we have a near-universal UI language (HTML/CSS) and a basic scripting language (JS) that we can't use as an intermediate language for compilation to native UI is a tragedy. And I'm not talking about every nook and corner of JS and HTML and CSS. It's even more ridiculous that MS didn't use their HTML5 + JS framework they made for Windows 8/10. But the Office team is almost completely independent from Windows politically since they make so much money.
  - userbinator 6y ago
    slight advantages in speed and resource utilisation I would not call the two orders of magnitude difference that you can get between true native and this new webcrapp stuff "slight". There are reports of Teams taking dozens of gigabytes of RAM --- that's just not something you would see with a native application with the equivalent functionality, unless it was written extremely horribly. Dozens of MB is a comfortable amount of memory for such an application to use, and the old MSN Messenger (native! with many third-party clients too!) was in that ballpark. Remember that Skype used to have a native Linux client too. Microsoft is a huge company. They can certainly afford it. is textbook waste of money. So it all comes back to corporate greed. Inflicting a dismal user experience on everyone, for what would be an essentially tiny savings on their end.

by weikju 6y ago

userbinator 6y ago

There are third-party native Slack clients, but I'm not sure if anyone has made an attempt at doing the same for Teams? ability lost when migrating from Skype for Business ...which also used to be native code (like the original Skype). It's really disappointing to see that Microsoft, of all companies, seems to have no interest in writing a native Win32 client for its own service, and instead effectively strengthens Google's monopoly by using its browser engine.

sofixa 6y ago
> It's really disappointing to see that Microsoft, of all companies, seems to have no interest in writing a native Win32 client for its own service And another one for macOS, and another one for Linux distros. Teams would have never become as popular if it was Windows-only, and doing frontend code 3 times for some slight advantages in speed and resource utilisation is textbook waste of money.
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  The recurring tragedy of UI toolkits... The fact we have a near-universal UI language (HTML/CSS) and a basic scripting language (JS) that we can't use as an intermediate language for compilation to native UI is a tragedy. And I'm not talking about every nook and corner of JS and HTML and CSS. It's even more ridiculous that MS didn't use their HTML5 + JS framework they made for Windows 8/10. But the Office team is almost completely independent from Windows politically since they make so much money.
- userbinator 6y ago
  slight advantages in speed and resource utilisation I would not call the two orders of magnitude difference that you can get between true native and this new webcrapp stuff "slight". There are reports of Teams taking dozens of gigabytes of RAM --- that's just not something you would see with a native application with the equivalent functionality, unless it was written extremely horribly. Dozens of MB is a comfortable amount of memory for such an application to use, and the old MSN Messenger (native! with many third-party clients too!) was in that ballpark. Remember that Skype used to have a native Linux client too. Microsoft is a huge company. They can certainly afford it. is textbook waste of money. So it all comes back to corporate greed. Inflicting a dismal user experience on everyone, for what would be an essentially tiny savings on their end.