I prefer well-designed desktop applications to web applications for most things that don't naturally involve the web:
* Email clients (I use Thunderbird)
* Office suites
* Music and media players
* Maps
* Information managers (e.g., password managers)
* Development tools
* Personal productivity tools (e.g., to-do lists)
* Games
As Windows starts on-boarding their unified Electron model (I can't recall what they have named this), I suspect we'll see more lightweight Electron desktop apps. But for the record, I like purpose built, old-fashioned desktop applications. I prefer traditional desktop applications because:
* Traditional applications economize on display real-estate in ways that modern web apps rarely do. The traditional desktop application uses compact controls, very modest spacing, and high information density. While I have multiple monitors, I don't like the idea of wasting an entire monitor for one application at a time.
* Standard user interface elements. Although sadly falling out of favor, many desktop applications retain traditional proven high-productivity user interface elements such as drop-down menus, context menus, hotkeys, and other shortcuts.
* Depth of configuration. Traditional desktop apps tended to avoid the whittling of functionality and customization found in mobile and web apps. Many can be customized extensively to adapt to the tastes and needs of the user.
Bottom-line: Yes, for some users and use-cases, it still makes sense to make desktop apps. It may be a "long-tail" target at this point, but there's still a market.
This is a big part of why I still use MacOS. The mail, notes and reminder apps are simple, easy, fast and can be used with third party providers like Fastmail. The Windows apps are fairly sluggish by comparison. I prefer most native MacOS apps in general, Finder/Explorer is a big exception though.
Only if you're using a ridiculously outdated copy:
changed
Add-on support: Add-ons are only supported if add-on authors have adapted them
changed
Dictionary support: Only WebExtension dictionaries are supported now. Both addons.mozilla.org and addons.thunderbird.net now provide WebExtension dictionaries.
changed
Theme support: Only WebExtension themes are supported now. Both addons.mozilla.org and addons.thunderbird.net now provide WebExtension themes.
Literally here's a doc explaining how XUL has changed as of Thunderbird 68, the most recent version, released about a month and a half ago. Yes, some elements have been removed, but others have been modified and still exist.
And that's in the add-on documentation, not even just internal development docs.
Also, describing information changed in the most recent stable release, a month and a half ago, hardly qualifies any older as "ridiculously outdated ".
I'll grant you that an Electron app is generally 90% C++ (ships a web browser), but I'm not sure if that makes Thunderbird (ships a web browser) any better.
I believe they’re referring to the web as port 80/443 http(s) traffic. It’s the old World Wide Web vs internet distinction, if you will.
Email really is just a protocol for message sending, and it lives on it’s own port with its own server. If you have an email client and access to an email server (POP/SMTP/however), you can use email over the internet but without the “web”.
Basically, the web email client ought not be the only email client.
`Web`[0] is shorthand for `World Wide Web` which is specifically about HTTP/HTTPS and/or the applications built on that protocol. It is an entirely unambiguous word in this context.
`Internet`[1] is distinct, and that's the general purpose network of networks that you refer to which the Web is built on top of.
Totally fair! Frankly, I only know the distinction from a high school computers teacher who was adamant about the distinction.
I guess the easiest way to get the name is to see the “Web” as a “web” of hyper text documents, where hyperlinks act as the strands in the web (graph edges, if you will).
Honestly, like you say, it’s all built on top of a computer network (yet another web/graph). As a consequence, the distinction never really made a ton of sense to me, either.
Alas, this is the common parlance, so it is what it is.
Nope, different protocols. You don't need web browsers for email, and the email clients that run in web browsers are using mail servers to send and receive.
If the web didn't exist, which it didn't prior to 1991, email would still work fine. There just wouldn't be any web-based email clients.
* Email clients (I use Thunderbird)
* Office suites
* Music and media players
* Maps
* Information managers (e.g., password managers)
* Development tools
* Personal productivity tools (e.g., to-do lists)
* Games
As Windows starts on-boarding their unified Electron model (I can't recall what they have named this), I suspect we'll see more lightweight Electron desktop apps. But for the record, I like purpose built, old-fashioned desktop applications. I prefer traditional desktop applications because:
* Traditional applications economize on display real-estate in ways that modern web apps rarely do. The traditional desktop application uses compact controls, very modest spacing, and high information density. While I have multiple monitors, I don't like the idea of wasting an entire monitor for one application at a time.
* Standard user interface elements. Although sadly falling out of favor, many desktop applications retain traditional proven high-productivity user interface elements such as drop-down menus, context menus, hotkeys, and other shortcuts.
* Depth of configuration. Traditional desktop apps tended to avoid the whittling of functionality and customization found in mobile and web apps. Many can be customized extensively to adapt to the tastes and needs of the user.
Bottom-line: Yes, for some users and use-cases, it still makes sense to make desktop apps. It may be a "long-tail" target at this point, but there's still a market.