4 ms·
I have seen the comparison video and I am unimpressed. A company with the legacy in software development that Microsoft has should be ashamed of how slow both v
by favsq 4y ago
I have seen the comparison video and I am unimpressed. A company with the legacy in software development that Microsoft has should be ashamed of how slow both versions load and how jittery everything seems.
It is 2023, how can they find it acceptable that loading is so slow that UI elements appear one by one? That's something I expect from a computer running Windows 95 on a 386DX.
- revendell_elf 4y agoYes! It's hard to believe that this company made an entire OS. No matter how much revenue Teams is generating, given the number of users, it deserves a native app, not a webview!
- Nextgrid 4y ago> A company with the legacy in software development that Microsoft has should be ashamed of how slow both versions load and how jittery everything seems. That ship sailed long ago after they excreted the turd that is Windows 8 and its successors.
- pjmlp 4y agoUWP was actually alright, alongside .NET Native and C++/CX, however they fully borked the whole development experience how to adopt them. Advise from a recovering UWP advocate, stay away from Windows Runtime (WinUI and WinAppSDK) as much as possible.
- pelagicAustral 4y agoYou probably wouldn't get performance this bad back in 95 since we used to build native apps for the desktop. Unlike these days were a bunch of dingbats are pushing the js agenda beyond the limits of whats reasonable acceptable.
- 72deluxe 4y agoThis is an excellent summary of the problem. The sad thing is that most users consider this perfectly normal and acceptable, and even users who have used computers for 30+ years seem to think these sluggish, crap "apps" are perfectly acceptable. It's bonkers.
- 72deluxe 4y agoYes I was shocked that they thought a 9.1 second launch time was good?! How long did MSN Messenger take to launch back on a Pentium 1?