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

Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#41

Post by tlinton »

ashark wrote: post #16
akurilin wrote: post #7

I've been using slack just fine in the browser, haven't had much of a need for a desktop version of it. I can just make a separate chrome instance for it and move it into its own xmonad workspace and switch to it much more conveniently than through alt-tab.

The desktop application for Slack is basically the same thing as having a dedicated browser window anyway, except probably even heavier-weight, at least in the OS X version. IIRC they use the same JS-on-the-desktop toolkit as Atom, so it's not a desktop application so much as it is a "desktop application". It eats ~400MB(!!!!) of RAM on my laptop at all times and I'm sure the only reason it isn't painfully unresponsi…

V8 has an odd habit of not releasing memory back to the OS after mark-and-sweeps. It's a minor performance boost to let it roll up memory and it isn't uncommon for it to hog up as much memory until a heuristic (or an OS signal) tells it to knock it off.

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#42

Post by incompatible »

I'd say it surely depends on what the "app" is supposed to do. I like to run Firefox natively rather than as a web app. On the other hand I'll be thrilled when the local tax office convert their Windows/MacOS software to a web app so that I can use it on Linux.

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#43

Post by totallynotcool »

stephenr wrote: post #37
zippergz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I hate about Slack. It feels like a webapp inside of a very thin wrapper.

This type of app really bites us (users) in the ass when we try things real Mac apps have done literally for decades - drag and drop. Drag a file expecting it to be accepted as an upload, but oh wait no, the web view navigated to view that file. And I have no back button so I have to quit the app.

That's an issue as most webviews can ad a bit of js and support that feature. I'd email the dev a bug report.

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#44

Post by pbh101 »

hobarrera wrote: post #40
grimgrin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slack feels like it should be in the browser for me, as a pinned tab. So at my job that's how I use it.

The problem with these tabs is that closing that window, the tab is gone forever (on both chromium and firefox). It's also easy to lose track of which window they were in quite fast. A separate app is faster to find on almost any WM/OS.

Maybe I miss your meaning but on OS X/chrome: cmd-shift-T to reopen the last window with all tabs. Works even after a chrome restart. Saves me when 40 tabs open and I Cmd-Q for too long instead of Cmd-W.

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#45

Post by hobarrera »

superfad wrote: post #14
DrScump wrote: post #12

"Your users don’t need an authorization to" ... what ?

My guess is she means they don't need authorization to install it if it is a web app, where as a desktop app may need company sign off to install software.

In any case, if a company is using an app like theirs (FrontApp), it would be stupid for IT not to authorize employees to install it. The particular point really doesn't apply to this sort of tools.

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#46

Post by hobarrera »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #35
gluxon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there were better frameworks to use that would allow code reuse across all platforms it would certainly make this easier. I feel that this is exactly what web applications try to solve in the first place.

> I feel that this is exactly what web applications try to solve in the first place. Yeah I think so too but I don't think it really did. Native apps are almost always so much better. The biggest issue is discovery and installation of native applications that make the web more approachable. I'd love to see some better development frameworks that let me use native UI components to build an application that can share b…

Qt? It's your best shot for native win32/osx/*nix apps, and you can reuse lots of code for the android/ios versions (though you'll have to rewrite the views, of course).

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#47

Post by saurik »

netheril96 wrote: post #38
saurik wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the normal summary would be "the new version of our tool has streamlined numerous features, allowing you to spend less time using our app; testing already reports people spend 30% less time"; the implication, though, left out of the summary, is "and accomplish the same things" (which is why it is only summarized as the exact opposite, but the metric, I agree, is not the exact opposite).

For entertainment apps such as social networking, games and music, there are no specific goals to achieve, and more time spent the better. I don't know whether that applies to the app in this article, though.

Hence why I qualified my statement to "a tool designed...", as that is what the article is discussing (the wording of your comment makes me wonder if you read it at all ;P). FEIW, I also question whether "engagement" is good metric for social tools as well: you up engagement by making things critically need harder to use, which is a perverse incentive.

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#48

Post by incompatible »

"Once they find their place in the Windows Start menu or the Mac OS Dock, they are always visible."

I don't think this is true anymore in Windows 8+. From my limited experience in using it, once you install something it disappears into a mass of icons and is never seen again. If you can remember the name you may be able to search for it.

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#49

Post by cwyers »

hobarrera wrote: post #45
superfad wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is she means they don't need authorization to install it if it is a web app, where as a desktop app may need company sign off to install software.

In any case, if a company is using an app like theirs (FrontApp), it would be stupid for IT not to authorize employees to install it. The particular point really doesn't apply to this sort of tools.

It's more friction. Instead of waiting for IT to approve something when they get around to it, if in fact they do approve it at all, you can start using it now.

Re: Why we maintain desktop apps for OS X, Windows, and a web application

#50

Post by BinaryIdiot »

hobarrera wrote: post #46
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel that this is exactly what web applications try to solve in the first place. Yeah I think so too but I don't think it really did. Native apps are almost always so much better. The biggest issue is discovery and installation of native applications that make the web more approachable. I'd love to see some better development frameworks that let me use native UI components to build an application that can share b…

Qt? It's your best shot for native win32/osx/*nix apps, and you can reuse lots of code for the android/ios versions (though you'll have to rewrite the views, of course).

Whoa, I've used Qt an very, very long time ago so I knew of its existence but I had no idea they had iOS and Android ports. I'm going to have to look into that. Thanks!

Yeah I expect re-writing of views. Honestly I think that's unavoidable and perfectly fine it would just be nice to keep the business logic everywhere I go.

Post reply on HN