Top
Best
New

Posted by naves 1 day ago

Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold(www.jsnover.com)
See also https://x.com/stevesi/status/2036921223150440542 (https://xcancel.com/stevesi/status/2036921223150440542)
777 points | 552 commentspage 8
garganzol 1 day ago|
The UI strategy of the future may very well be HTML. It's widespread, standardized, sufficiently performant, and pretty rich.

What's still missing is deeper integration with native OS concepts and programming languages other than JS. Frameworks like Electron are a step in that direction but they come with notable drawbacks. Applications often struggle with things that should feel natural like managing multiple OS-level windows.

Another PITA: Electron apps repeatedly bundle large portions of Chromium, leading to unnecessary overhead. Those duplicated modules lead to bloated RAM usage: every app has its own Chromium copy and OS must keep all that zoo in RAM without a possibility of reusing the otherwise shareable parts.

disconcision 1 day ago||
not exactly the same, but worth noting that in a spectacular display of being too early, microsoft shipped this 30 years ago (active desktop in 1997 merged the windows explorer with internet explorer, turning folders into web pages).
vachina 1 day ago||
It is despised for the same reason web based UI is despised today. Firefox OS was also “too early” and failed.
rincebrain 1 day ago||
It was more despised for being a gaping security hole than anything else, as I recall - the things you could do with it were really neat demos, but even back then, I said "I am not loading a random website that can access local things every time I log in".
w4yai 1 day ago|||
I've been hearing that for 10+ years. This is not going to happen.
garganzol 1 day ago||
This has already happened de-facto. Optimize it properly, and the whole problem disappears.
lazide 1 day ago|||
HTML and CSS are also absurdly hard to actually do anything useful with or interactive compared to normal desktop or app frameworks.

Orders of magnitude more BS, plumbing, awkwardness, head scratching, etc.

garganzol 1 day ago||
That was indeed a pain point, but not anymore after CSS flex layout became available some 10 years ago. It's not worse than WPF for sure. It's even better than WPF because you have access to tons of UI components and toolkits that work everywhere.
lazide 1 day ago||
Uh huh.
tredre3 1 day ago||
I think you're comparing hand-writing an HTML/CSS interface to the WYSIWYG form editor of Qt or Visual Studio? Because hand writing a GUI in Qt/QML/C++/.NET is not any easier than writing it in HTML. There are tons of boilerplate and special markup to learn. The magical editor just hides all the plumbing from you.

I'll grant you that the lack of good WYSIWYG designers for working on web/electron apps is appalling, it's like RAD peaked in 1998 with VB6 and it's been downhill ever since.

lazide 1 day ago||
Not having to round trip through ACL/security checks.

Not having to deal with state management.

Not having to deal with browser compatibility issues (and mobile vs desktop).

Not having to deal with weird input validation stuff dual layer stuff that is inherent in web apps, but not a big deal elsewhere.

Not having to deal with laggy and unstable connections at the UI layer.

Etc, etc.

jimbokun 1 day ago|||
That’s the strategy of 20 years ago.
kmeisthax 1 day ago|||
There's a competing webapp-wrapper framework that explicitly uses the platform's own browser, but developers don't like being at the mercy of whatever the OS ships...
bigstrat2003 1 day ago||
> sufficiently performant

In no universe is HTML performant compared to actual desktop applications. It sucks big time.

gherkinnn 22 hours ago||
I had the displeasure to work with various MS systems over the years and coherence is not a concept in Redmond. It just isn't.

The layers of outdated and conflicting documentation, fragmented logins, the naming (365, live, .net [both naming everything that and the .net core naming labyrinth], copilot), Teams never made sense, Windows had levels and levels of settings (win10 preferences all the way back to dialogs predating the mammoth).

MS was, is and always be a blight upon this earth.

amai 18 hours ago||
To quote Steve Jobs: "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products. "
hacker_homie 1 day ago||
I feel this so hard.

It's all win32 underneath except for UWP, which is now deprecated.

so the answer is win32, raw winproc.

The issue is they haven't made a new GUI API (only frameworks) since win32.

hacker_homie 1 day ago|
To add the UWP APIs were always less than the win32 ones in the name of security.

The issue was they didn't give you an alternative they just said don't do that.

so inevitably at some point you decide to just write it in win32, don't ship in the store, etc so you can get things done.

snarfy 16 hours ago||
If an app has a zip download or a Microsoft Store link, the zip download is always a superior experience. UWP is a huge fail
d--b 1 day ago||
> WPF shipped in late 2006. It was remarkable – XAML, hardware-accelerated rendering, real data binding. If Microsoft had made it the definitive answer and invested relentlessly, the story might have ended differently.

Er… The author perhaps never used it? WPF was the worst framework I ever used. It was unbearably verbose, brutally unforgiving, used 2-way bindings that created updating nightmares, ans not the least it was incredibly slow.

WinForms was not the best for sure, but at least you can get stuff done. It was for a long time the right answer to the question the author asked. .Net + WinForms worked well.

When WPF shipped was when the shit hit the fan.

tonyedgecombe 20 hours ago||
All that and they abandoned it at birth. It never felt finished and got little to no attention for years.
moogly 16 hours ago||
> XAML

This is the common thread of all their frameworks since, and in my mind the reason they are stuck in an absolute quagmire. For a while it was possible to use HTML/JS in UWP (I think), but it didn't stick due to everyone already needing to move over their LOB apps with crazy amounts of XAML so that's what the focus was on.

"Hey, let's make something that's vaguely HTML but not really at all."

Big mistake.

Avalonia and Uno are repeating that mistake, even though with Uno, at least, there's a blessed way to do unidirectional data flow/reactive stuff.

Two-way data binding is the devil.

chrisjj 16 hours ago||
Has anyone tried turning Microsoft off and on again?
pipeline_peak 1 day ago||
Why tie your app to Windows at all?

Microsoft developed VS Code and Teams in Electron. That says a lot about how they see the future.

raincole 19 hours ago||
The funny thing is that Joel Spolsky predicted most of it 20 years ago[0]:

>> Jon Udell found a slide from Microsoft labelled “How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and Avalon?” and asks, “Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and Avalon?” A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer.

And:

>> Which means, suddenly, Microsoft’s API doesn’t matter so much. Web applications don’t require Windows.

What he didn't see is, however, Azure would become the money printer for Microsoft and made all these no longer matter.

[0]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...

scotty79 19 hours ago|
I stuck with WinForms. It was the last tech that made your app look and feel like Windows app.

Everything that came later was basically a struggle to make something that Electron actually delivered.

More comments...