Why I Think Windows UI Feels Slower — And Why It Isn’t Just My Imagination

Lately I’ve found myself increasingly annoyed by how sluggish modern Windows UI feels — especially compared with the old days when native apps felt instant. I’m not alone: a lot of users and developers are talking about this, and a major trigger in those conversations is the increasing dominance of web-based UI technologies (WebView2, Electron, SPA frameworks) in desktop apps.

You’ve probably noticed this yourself: apps that used to open instantly now take half a second or more; memory use feels huge even on capable hardware; some Windows Store apps feel sluggish or unresponsive. There’s a pattern, and it’s real — the reasons are worth unpacking.

A Live Example: WhatsApp’s Windows App Conversion

Just recently, Meta replaced the native WhatsApp Windows client with a WebView2-based build that simply wraps the web app in a browser control. Independent reports show this change dramatically increased RAM usage (from tens of megabytes to hundreds or even over 1 GB when idle or with many chats open), and the app feels slower and less integrated with Windows.

There are a few implications here:

Meta ditched a native WinUI/UWP client even though that version was lean and tightly integrated.

The new app uses the browser engine (Chromium + WebView2) to render everything, which is easier to maintain but heavier at runtime.

Users experience sluggishness, delayed notifications, and generally worse integration. Independent feedback (e.g., in forums and on Reddit) highlights broken notifications and general instability with the new web-wrapped client.

This captures the broader tension: modern development favours one codebase and cheap cross-platform logic, but the runtime costs on desktop are tangible and noticeable.

Why WebView/Electron Apps Feel Slower — Even if They’re JIT/AOT Compiled

There’s a misconception that “web tech is compiled down to native code.” That’s partly true: modern engines like Chromium/V8/AOT snapshots can compile JavaScript/WASM to machine code, and WebView2 uses the Edge/Chromium engine under the hood. But that only addresses CPU execution, not the broader cost model of web frameworks.

Here’s what really matters:

Embedded browser engines bring multiple processes (browser, renderer, GPU).

Web UIs use DOM/CSS layout, style recalculation, and JS event loops that are inherently dynamic and expensive compared with retained native UIs (WinUI, DirectComposition).

Even with aggressive compilation, GUI composition and layout are expensive compared to native widget toolkits that leverage OS GPU paths more directly.

Modern web frameworks bundle a lot of JS upfront, then hydrate or attach interactivity in expensive additional passes at startup.

So the runtime is compiled to native, but the model (DOM + CSS + JS event loops + GC) still costs more cycles and memory than native UI frameworks optimized for desktop with tight GPU integration.

A recent Microsoft blog on Edge performance even highlights ongoing work to make complex web apps faster inside the browser — a clear acknowledgment that there are performance trade-offs here.

Is Native Windows UI Dead or Just Under-Invested?

Despite the complaints, native Windows UI tech isn’t inherently incapable of fast interfaces.

In fact:

Microsoft has been advancing Windows App SDK/WinUI, including native AOT support that can significantly reduce footprint and improve performance compared with traditional JIT models.

WinUI is designed to give performant, lightweight, native UIs that integrate deeply with Windows.

But the ecosystem has deprioritised pure native Windows apps for many mainstream scenarios. Many teams, including Microsoft itself, increasingly ship UI in:

WebView2 hosts
Electron containers
Cross-platform frameworks like React/Electron/react-native (via RNW)
Hybrid solutions

Part of that is economics: it’s cheaper and faster to maintain one web codebase, and there’s a huge supply of JavaScript/React developers compared to experienced native desktop UI developers.

Reddit discussions reflect this sentiment: developers point out that Microsoft uses React and web views in many system UI contexts, not because native is bad, but because the current budget, culture, and tooling incentives push toward web tech.

To be blunt: native Windows UI exists and is viable, but it’s not the default path for many flagship or third-party apps anymore.

When Web Tech Makes Sense — And When It Doesn’t

Web UI stacks can be surprisingly effective when:

The app’s logic is highly shared with web/mobile platforms.

You accept some overhead because the speed of iteration matters more than peak responsiveness.

The audience has good hardware, and memory/CPU budgets are not a priority.

But they falter when:

Responsiveness and tight OS integration matter (notifications, docked behavior, native widgets).

The UI layer handles highly dynamic or animation-heavy interfaces, where layout costs dominate.

Low memory footprint is a requirement.

In other words: many web UIs are “good enough” for casual consumer apps — but “good enough” is still noticeably slower and heavier than a purpose-written native UI.

What Needs to Happen Next

If we want Windows UI to feel fast again — even with modern cross-platform pressures — here’s a pragmatic roadmap that respects both economics and UX quality:

Make native UI tooling faster to adopt

Improve WinUI templates, hot-reload, and cross-platform bridges so developers don’t reach for web views by default.

Optimize WebView2 memory and integration

Shared, system-wide instances; smaller footprints; tighter integration with OS event loops.

Use hybrid architectures where it makes sense

Native shells + web UI only for isolated views, not the entire app.

Profile and optimize critically

Treat UI performance (startup latency, input latency, memory budget) as first-order metrics — not afterthoughts.

Educate teams on cost vs. performance

Provide clear criteria for choosing web vs native paths based on actual user experience trade-offs, not just dev velocity.

Bottom Line

The perception that “Windows UI is slow because everything is web tech now” has merit, and live changes like WhatsApp’s migration validate that trend. But the reality is nuanced:

Web tech is compiled and sophisticated, but its runtime model isn’t as predictable as native UI frameworks.

Native Windows UI remains viable, but isn’t getting top billing in many app stacks today due to cost and developer availability.

Performance complaints are real, but they come from architectural cost models, not just lazy engineering.

The future of Windows UI — if it’s fast and feels native — depends on better tooling, smarter architectural decisions, and investment in native performance where it matters.