You can program junk in any language. I've built a pretty neat real time web application using nothing but JavaScript and a little thinking. Could it be better? Yes, no doubt. I could have written it as a native application for all of the platforms that it currently supports (Desktop on Windows, Mac, Linux, mobile phones Android and iPhone). But I really don't have the time or the resources for that so this helped me to scratch my itch, helps a ton of other people as well and keeps the future options open. If you can do it as a web app you probably should do just that.
I've a bunch of ideas on how to improve it that would require much more speed for raw computation, so for now that's off the table. Maybe one day it'll catch up, maybe there are some performance tricks that I'm simply not aware of that could make it happen today. But it's plenty useful as it is.
Teams is typical bloatware. We had video-in-the-browser in 1995 and it worked, by 1998 we had audio as well plus a whole pile of people hanging off high volume events (Shuttle launches, F1 etc). Since then computers have become considerably faster. That there are alternatives to Teams that do not suffer from the same drawbacks makes me think that this is implementation dependent and that MS would really love you to download their native stuff. The web based Teams clients doesn't seem like it was ever priority #1. And because in any Teams meeting with more than five participants there always is at least one person using the web the impression is that the system as a whole just doesn't work.
The web version of teams works much better than the "native" one. Pressing F5 when it stops working is much faster than restarting an entire browser.
But then microsoft just decides to kick its users in the balls again by adding a feature that allows outgoing calls only on chrome and edge while blocking firefox. Meetings work, so that's obviously bullshit.
I guess electron isn't what makes teams terrible, but rather microsoft.
> And because in any Teams meeting with more than five participants there always is at least one person using the web the impression is that the system as a whole just doesn't work.
That's me. Like with Slack, both native and web versions are junk, but the web version is leaner and snappier. And no, generally me using the web version didn't cause any issues to anyone on corporate calls.
NetMeeting managed live conferencing over 56k lines and on Pentium IIs. A tragically underappreciated piece of software, Skype before Skype with directories and the lot.
I've a bunch of ideas on how to improve it that would require much more speed for raw computation, so for now that's off the table. Maybe one day it'll catch up, maybe there are some performance tricks that I'm simply not aware of that could make it happen today. But it's plenty useful as it is.
Teams is typical bloatware. We had video-in-the-browser in 1995 and it worked, by 1998 we had audio as well plus a whole pile of people hanging off high volume events (Shuttle launches, F1 etc). Since then computers have become considerably faster. That there are alternatives to Teams that do not suffer from the same drawbacks makes me think that this is implementation dependent and that MS would really love you to download their native stuff. The web based Teams clients doesn't seem like it was ever priority #1. And because in any Teams meeting with more than five participants there always is at least one person using the web the impression is that the system as a whole just doesn't work.