Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

windowslatest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 535 posts

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#231

Post by cogman10 »

sgt wrote: post #224
cogman10 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily, I'd say the reason web apps tend to be worse than native apps is because the web is so much more powerful and flexible. For a native app, I'm often limited to just a small set of components and maybe images I can put on those components. Animations are out of the picture. Configuring colors is sometimes not available but always painful (every component needs it tweaked, there's no universal way to change it)…

Although technically speaking, native is much more flexible as you can literally do anything. But yes, most devs will just use standard UI components and that's it. So your point holds.

Well, to do literally anything outside of standard components, you effectively end up in a realm of programmatically drawing your own "anythings". Certainly possible because obviously browsers are examples of this. But a lot harder.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#232

Post by robertlagrant »

sgt wrote: post #45
robertlagrant wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can definitely make a webview app that starts as quickly as most native thing (sub-1s start). We used Tauri and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

That's a pretty simple view of native app vs web. Web will always have a lot of baggage that native apps simply won't have, layers and layers of abstractions that still needs to load. It's true that a blank canvas loaded as a web view will start fast, though. But in practice, when web applications grow - performance tends to take a hit, and the developers also tend to be careless with resources.

> That's a pretty simple view of native app vs web. Web will always have a lot of baggage that native apps simply won't have, layers and layers of abstractions that still needs to load.

Well, as I say, you can definitely have webview apps that start fast and aren't taking ten seconds to do things. Not just blank canvasses.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#233

Post by fluoridation »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #216
beart wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As slow as Windows is (very), once you start adding the corporate security tools on top of it (Crowdstrike) and have to deal with a slow and buggy corporate DNS system, it just becomes unusable. The only way I can do anything timely now is through WSL.

Yeah, I'm worried about the day when infosec turns it's eye toward WSL. So far they have turned a blind eye, but just wait until someone cooks up an exploit targeting WSL...

It's "just" a Hyper-V VM with some extra drivers to talk to the sibling VM. There isn't much special about it that should worry you too much.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#234

Post by deweywsu »

What was really behind the push to get everything browser based in the first place? Is this all to make everything cloud based, software as a service, or did some exec see a demo of Windows 8 and think "web is the future" and over-rotate?

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#235

Post by jen20 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #202
vladvasiliu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME running the new outlook in an actual web browser (through outlook.office.com) is waaay faster than the heavy (heh) client. Bonus points for it running fine on Linux, too. I understand there are some missing features compared to the old one (can't recall which), but for basic corpo emailing it works perfectly for me. I now have 0 reasons to use Windows at work, so, for once, I'll nonironically cheer MS for a job w…

> I understand there are some missing features compared to the old one There are some people that use Outlook for...well I'm not sure what but things that go way beyond email and calendar. I've been using the web app for several years now, it's fine. When I was new in IT, I always struggled to see what the big deal was with Outlook desktop. The web mail has folders, rules, shared mailbox support, integrated calendar,…

> People treat email has a permanent data store.

Email the protocol has this built in.

> If "new" Outlook can break some of those habits, we'll all be better off for it.

It won't, since email is in fact the best data store available to most people in enterprises (especially compared to things like Sharepoint). It might finally accelerate the move away from Exchange though. Here's hoping.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#236

Post by SoKamil »

lawlorino wrote: post #93
SoKamil wrote: post #31

Outlook for Mac is surprisingly good, though. Every interaction feels (and is) native. Kudos to the team. I think this is same team that maintains Office Suite for Mac. I hope to see Teams for Mac in the future. Current Teams app is dogshit.

Are we talking about the same Outlook here? And I mean that sincerely. I just joined a new company and now have to use MS software for the first time since Windows 7. Outlook, Teams, OneDrive, you name it, are all a clunky mess (at least on MacOs).

Good question. There are two versions of Outlook on macOS.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-US/Outlook/outlook-for-mac

Which one did you use?

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#237

Post by warumdarum »

thewebguyd wrote: post #202
vladvasiliu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME running the new outlook in an actual web browser (through outlook.office.com) is waaay faster than the heavy (heh) client. Bonus points for it running fine on Linux, too. I understand there are some missing features compared to the old one (can't recall which), but for basic corpo emailing it works perfectly for me. I now have 0 reasons to use Windows at work, so, for once, I'll nonironically cheer MS for a job w…

> I understand there are some missing features compared to the old one There are some people that use Outlook for...well I'm not sure what but things that go way beyond email and calendar. I've been using the web app for several years now, it's fine. When I was new in IT, I always struggled to see what the big deal was with Outlook desktop. The web mail has folders, rules, shared mailbox support, integrated calendar,…

A self sorting shield against to much information if you are at the hub of some organization..

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#238

Post by fluoridation »

maccard wrote: post #178
criddell wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know IT people often aren't given the time to dig into this stuff, but xperf and event tracing should reveal the culprit fairly quickly. The best resource for this kind of stuff is Bruce Dawson's blog: https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/etw-central/

I'm not IT, I'm' just the senior most engineer in a game studio. Ive got WPA captures that point to windows defender, even with processes and folders excluded. But I have literally no idea what to do with those traces, hence my 99% conviction.

If it's that bad, why not just disable it?

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#239

Post by jen20 »

deweywsu wrote: post #234

What was really behind the push to get everything browser based in the first place? Is this all to make everything cloud based, software as a service, or did some exec see a demo of Windows 8 and think "web is the future" and over-rotate?

The push is that web developers are easy to find, and native software developers barely event exist anymore (and if they do can get paid to work on things like trading software, though web is even picking up there!).

Microsoft don't even _have_ a reasonable desktop UI stack, having been through at least 4-5 which gained minimal traction before being abandoned. The last successful one was Windows Forms, which is what I'd pick up today if I ever had to touch Windows again.

Re: Microsoft new Outlook takes 10 seconds to do what Outlook Classic does instantly

#240

Post by antaviana »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #63
patates wrote: post #8

> Outlook is based on WebView2, and like all web apps, it’s slow Fastmail also has a web based email client, which is as fast as (if not faster than) Outlook Classic. The new Outlook is just bad. Load order is wrong, it renders everything on every window, loads unnecessary data, etc. Plain annoying.

IME running the new outlook in an actual web browser (through outlook.office.com) is waaay faster than the heavy (heh) client. Bonus points for it running fine on Linux, too. I understand there are some missing features compared to the old one (can't recall which), but for basic corpo emailing it works perfectly for me. I now have 0 reasons to use Windows at work, so, for once, I'll nonironically cheer MS for a job w…

Public Folders is what makes us stick with the old Outlook client. For 25 years Public Folder has been a simple drag and drop, hierarchical archive system for communications with clients and vendors at team level.
Post reply on HN