According to Digital Trends, WhatsApp just pushed a major update that effectively replaces the fast native Windows app with a web wrapper. The change means the desktop app is now basically the WhatsApp website running in a window, requiring users to log back in. Reports first surfaced back in July that the Beta version was moving this direction, and now it’s hitting all users on both beta and stable versions. Early tests show the new version consumes over 300MB of RAM just to start up, compared to the old version that handled hundreds of chats using less than 100MB. The switch brings noticeable lag, stuttering, and general sluggishness that wasn’t present before.
This is a performance nightmare
Here’s the thing: the old app was built specifically for Windows, which made it snappy and lightweight. This new web wrapper? Basically the opposite. It feels heavier because it’s running like a web browser rather than a native application. Switching between chats isn’t instant anymore – there’s that annoying lag that makes you question whether you actually clicked anything. And the RAM usage jumping from under 100MB to over 300MB? That’s just wild for what’s essentially a messaging app.
Your workflow just got worse
But it’s not just about performance numbers. The new layout actually messes with how you use the app day-to-day. You can’t squish the window down to show only the active chat anymore, which is a huge pain if you like keeping WhatsApp as a thin strip on the side of your monitor. The app feels choppy, sometimes looking like it’s running at a low frame rate. So if you keep WhatsApp open all day for work or chatting, you’re definitely going to notice the difference. It’s one of those changes that makes you wonder – who asked for this?
Why Meta made this move
So why would WhatsApp do this? Look, it’s pretty clear this is about making things easier for Meta, not users. Maintaining one web-based codebase is cheaper than building separate native apps for different platforms. As testing shows, the performance impact is significant, but the development cost savings for Meta are probably substantial. They might argue that new features will arrive faster now, but that’s cold comfort when the basic experience feels worse.
Is this the new normal?
Meta hasn’t officially commented on the performance complaints yet, which isn’t surprising. The big question is whether they’ll actually optimize this web wrapper or if we’re stuck with this slower, hungrier version. For businesses and power users who rely on smooth performance, this could be a real problem. And honestly, it makes you appreciate when companies actually invest in proper native applications. We’re stuck waiting to see if Meta tightens up the experience or if this laggy web wrapper becomes the permanent Windows experience.
