WinUI 3 Performance: A Leap Forward

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Microsoft’s claim that WinUI 3 performance is making “a leap forward” is met with deep skepticism from Windows developers, many of whom say the framework remains slower and clunkier than older technologies like WPF, Win32, and even UWP. Commenters describe poor tooling, laggy UI behavior, and a history of abandoned or directionless UI frameworks as reasons to avoid WinUI 3, often favoring cross‑platform options such as Avalonia or immediate‑mode GUIs instead. The broader theme is frustration that modern Windows UI stacks have become more complex and resource‑hungry while offering little real improvement in responsiveness, stability, or accessibility.

Overall reaction to WinUI 3 performance work

  • Some welcome that Microsoft appears to care about performance and quality again.
  • Others see the blog as mostly marketing, expecting that once usage rebounds, bloat and “experience-killing” features (ads, etc.) will return.
  • Several note a long-running “good/bad” oscillation in Windows releases and doubt that 11 is in the “good” category.

Trust in Microsoft UI frameworks

  • Many Windows devs say they’ve been burned repeatedly (Silverlight, UWP, WinRT, MAUI, etc.) and now avoid new frameworks.
  • WPF and even WinForms/Win32 are still preferred by several participants for reliability and tooling.
  • WinUI/WinRT is often described as something to avoid unless no alternative exists.

WinUI 3 developer and user experience

  • Developer experience is widely criticized: poor docs, missing designer, hacks required for basic behavior, laggy controls and resizing.
  • C++/WinRT and the surrounding tooling are called out as especially painful.
  • Some say WinUI 3 is measurably slower than WPF and UWP in community benchmarks.

Cross‑platform vs Windows‑specific UI

  • Multiple commenters argue there’s little reason to pick WinUI over cross‑platform options (Avalonia, egui, Flutter, MAUI, etc.), except possibly for native integration and accessibility.
  • Others stress trade‑offs: immediate vs retained mode, startup time, memory usage, “native feel,” accessibility, and scroll behavior.
  • Avalonia is frequently mentioned as a “spiritual successor” to WPF; some already use it but still find it laggy.

Explorer, system apps, and OS performance

  • People hope WinUI improvements will benefit Explorer, Photos, and other system apps; this is stated as an explicit goal in the linked content.
  • Several complain that Explorer and basic apps (Calculator, image viewer) are noticeably slow on modern hardware.
  • Some contrast this with memories of Windows 7/8/early‑10 and Windows Phone being extremely fast and efficient on low‑end devices.

Technical causes of slowness (debated)

  • One view blames pervasive COM/WinRT reference counting and abstraction layers for overhead.
  • Others counter that ref‑counting is rarely the main bottleneck in UI; they blame layout algorithms, blocking the UI thread, and excessive object churn instead.
  • There is agreement that newer frameworks are significantly heavier than older ones built for more constrained machines.

Broader design and business concerns

  • Commenters lament loss of clear Windows design guidelines and cohesive UI.
  • Accessibility and traditional desktop affordances (keyboard accelerators, clear focus/edges) are seen as regressing.
  • Several argue that corporate/VP priorities and ad/telemetry monetization drive decisions more than technical excellence.