WhatsApp UWP on Windows desktop: history, changes and guide

Informatec Digital » Resources » WhatsApp UWP on Windows desktop: history, changes and guide

Messaging is a constant companion on our phones, but when we're at our PCs, it's more convenient to have everything on a single screen. In this context, WhatsApp on Windows has gone through several stages to reach its current form, with changes that have significantly impacted user experience and system performance. Recent history ranges from a web-based app, a very solid native UWP phase, and finally, a return to a WebView2 container which is causing quite a stir.

It's important to understand what has changed, why each decision was made, and how it affects you when chatting, calling, or sending files from your computer. There are differences in memory consumption, speed, and integration with Windows.In addition to nuances regarding security, multi-device support, and installation steps that are worth understanding.

From Electron to UWP: why the leap was so important

For years, the WhatsApp client for Windows relied on ElectronA framework that packages a complete copy of Chromium to run a web interface as if it were a desktop app. The result, in this case, was not as expected: Complaints accumulated regarding uneven performance, high resource consumption, and some inconsistency. in the integration with the system.

Meta then decided to follow the path Microsoft was promoting for Windows: Universal Windows Platform (UWP) apps. After a beta period, a native version arrived that definitively replaced Electron. The change was noticeable from the first minute: interface adapted to Windows, light and dark themes, and instant notifications without the app having to remain running in the background.

In numbers, the difference was clear. In comparative tests, the UWP version consumed around 100-200 MB of RAM compared to the peaks of nearly 800 MB that the Electron version could reach. CPU usage also fell in everyday tasks such as scrolling through chats., going from rounds of 60% to figures close to 20% in similar scenarios.

In addition, a key improvement was introduced regarding the phone's battery life and overall convenience: The app no ​​longer depended on the phone being online. to work on the computer. It was enough to link the device once to be able to use WhatsApp on the PC independently.

The native app experience: features, design, and independence

The WhatsApp UWP app on Windows integrated seamlessly with the system. It offered light and dark themes, a design consistent with WinUI, and ran smoothly even on modest machines. Notifications arrived instantly and animations were smooth., eliminating many of the micro-stutters that the previous version suffered from.

In terms of functions, you could do practically the same as on a mobile phone: text chats, voice calls, video calls, sending photos, videos and documents, and managing notifications. The chats remained end-to-end encrypted, while maintaining the platform's privacy pillar.

Another significant new feature was broad multi-device support. WhatsApp allowed the use of up to four linked devices in addition to an active phone, making it possible to work on a desktop PC, a laptop, and, if desired, another device, without depending on the mobile phone's connection status. This independence from the telephone marked a turning point..

Interestingly, in some texts the term Eclipse was used when referring to previous versions; the correct thing to do is to talk about Electron and the web, since that was the technical basis of that client before the UWP stage. The native app arrived to solve the shortcomings of that approachAnd for a while he did it with flying colors.

The shift to WebView2: what's happening now

A few years later, Meta has made a technical change: the WhatsApp application for Windows has abandoned native UWP development to return to an implementation based on web technologies with WebView2, the Microsoft component that takes advantage of the Edge engine (Chromium). This means that the app now loads the web version inside a container, instead of running as a pure native application.

Why this decision? Among the business reasons are code unification and reduced maintenance costs. With a single base code, WhatsApp can deploy faster across web, Windows, and macOS, sharing much of the development process. Less deployment effort and faster updates These are two compelling arguments for companies that serve hundreds of millions of users.

However, the change has been accompanied by a drop in performance on some devices, according to tests by specialized media and users. Increased memory consumption, more running auxiliary processes, and an experience more similar to using WhatsApp Web have been detected. but in a separate window.

Several reports have noted that this new version based on WebView2 uses about 30% more RAM than the UWP version under comparable circumstances. Loading multiple web engine threads —such as GPU Process, Network or Utility— becomes visible in the Task Manager, increasing complexity and energy impact, especially on laptops.

Electron vs WebView2: not the same, but similar

It's important to distinguish between the two most common web approaches on desktop. Electron packages its own Chromium with each application, so each app is, in practice, a complete, standalone browser. This increases RAM and disk usage, and creates additional processes for each program based on that framework.

WebView2, on the other hand, does not embed its own browser; it reuses the Edge engine already present on the system. This reduces duplication and disk space, since there is no need to carry a copy of Chromium for each application. Even so, it's still heavier than a native appbecause the interface and logic are rendered as web content.

In WhatsApp, the return to a web container means losing some of the fine integration with Windows that UWP had. Certain actions that once felt instantaneous They may now show slight delays, and the impact on battery life is usually greater when there are many conversations and multimedia content loaded.

It is important to emphasize that we have not exactly returned to square one: compared to Electron, WebView2 leverages the system engine and, in theory, can be more resource-constrained. However, the advantage over a native implementation remains limited. when we talk about pure efficiency.

Memory consumption and performance: real figures and scenarios

The published measurements show a consistent pattern. Compared to UWP, the WebView2 version tends to use more memory. Average increases of around 30% have been reported With regular use, and in cases with many chats and heavy content, the jump is greater.

Some analyses detected RAM consumption of around 300 MB on the initial screen with no apparent activity, while the native app remained within margins of 10-20 MB in that same situation. After logging in and loading conversations, on some devices usage rises to between 1 and 2 GBand peaks of nearly 3 GB have been seen when handling numerous active chats.

At idle, more than 1 GB has been observed with the app minimized in the background on certain systems, something that contrasts with the efficiency of the old UWP, which tended to use between 10% and 20% of that amount under similar conditions. This has a direct effect on laptop battery life. and in the overall fluidity when the computer has little RAM.

In the Task Manager, it is normal to see several threads associated with the web engine: rendering, GPU, network, and utilities. This division into multiple processes means the system has to coordinate more threads.which doesn't always work in its favor on limited hardware.

What is gained and what is lost with the new approach

For Meta, technical unification brings clear advantages: a single code that serves web, Windows and macOSShorter release cycles and less QA and maintenance effort. For the user, the most visible benefit may be the faster arrival of features and fixes.

The cost, however, is paid in native integration and raw efficiency. Returning to a web interface internally implies increased RAM and CPU usage in certain scenarios, a potentially heavier startup and the feeling that the app is very similar to opening the browser tab with web.whatsapp.com.

On modern computers with plenty of memory and good processors, you might not notice much difference in day-to-day use. On laptops with 8 GB or less, or on older machines, lags, micro-stutters, and overheating They can become more evident when chats, attachments, and calls accumulate.

Several users have reported delays when opening the app, loss of fluidity when scrolling through long conversations, and, in extreme situations, unexpected closures when handling many messages or sharing large files. These are typical symptoms of a demanding web layer running as if it were native..

Requirements, installation and linking in Windows

Installation remains simple and, if you're upgrading from an older version, the update is seamless. The app works on Windows 10 and Windows 11And during its UWP phase, it required at least Windows 10 14316.0 or higher. Today, the official channel remains the Microsoft Store.

• Open the Microsoft Store and search for WhatsApp for Windows, from where you can download the official application.
• If you had the previous client, the new installation will automatically replace it, without any extra steps.

Once installed, the first boot guides you through pairing your phone. This process only needs to be done once per device.unless you manually log out or restore your computer.

• On your mobile device, go to Settings and tap on Linked devices.
• Tap on Link a device to open the camera.
• Scan the QR code that appears on the PC screen and wait a few seconds.
• Done: your account is now linked and you can use WhatsApp on your computer without your mobile phone needing to be connected to the Internet.

After linking, you'll be able to write, call, and share just like on your phone, but with a physical keyboard and a large screen. It's the most convenient way to reply to many messages when you work from your desk.

Key features and security: the essentials you need to know

The Windows client allows you to chat in text, initiate voice and video calls, send photos, videos and documents, and receive notifications. You can switch between light and dark themes From Settings to adapt the interface to your preferences.

All WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, so the content can only be read on the sender's and recipient's devices. This encryption is also maintained on the desktop., both in the UWP stage and in the current approach with WebView2.

The platform supports multiple devices linked simultaneously, with a practical limit of four devices in addition to the phone. The mobile device does not need to be connected for the desktop client to work.which is useful if you lose coverage or want to save battery.

In work environments, the independence of the desktop app helps maintain productivity, and integration with Windows notifications ensures you don't miss important alerts. Despite the technical shift, the core functionality remains.

FAQs

Why is it using more memory now? The app has ceased to be a native implementation and is now represented as web content within WebView2, a technology that requires additional processes and resources, especially with many chats and files uploaded. That change in architecture explains the increase.

Does this change affect the version I use in my browser? No. What has been modified is the desktop client that is installed from the Windows Store. The web version that you open in your usual browser remains the same. Just change the Windows application.

What do I do if the app is slow on my PC? If your device has limited RAM or you experience slowdowns, you can use WhatsApp from your browser, close sessions on linked devices you're not using, or limit the automatic downloading of media. These are measures that alleviate consumption without sacrificing service..

Practical comparison: when is the impact most noticeable?

The biggest spike in resource usage typically occurs in accounts with very large histories, chats with many images and videos, and highly active groups. Each view rendered in the web container adds to the load. If video calls are also made, CPU and GPU usage increases. easily.

On the other hand, if you have few chats and don't use multimedia much, the difference with the UWP stage can be discreet on a modern PC. Bottlenecks become more pronounced as complexity increases of what is shown on the screen.

Those who work with older laptops or those with 8 GB of RAM or less are the most sensitive to these changes. It's advisable to monitor the Task Manager when you notice lag to check for any WebView2 processes running. Closing and reopening the app sometimes downloads stored memory.

Another point to consider is the cold start. In the native UWP app, opening WhatsApp was very fast; in the WebView2-based version, startup can take a little longer due to engine activation and script loading. It's not dramatic, but it's noticeable. if you compare them side by side.

Why has Meta chosen this path?

Beyond the individual user experience, there are corporate reasons behind this. Maintaining multiple independent codebases increases costs and complicates release coordination. Sharing a large portion of the code between web and desktop It allows Meta to move faster and with less operational friction.

The price is the loss of fine-tuning a native app. It's a trend seen in many tech companies: cross-platform frameworks that cut development time, even if they don't always excel in efficiency. In an ecosystem like Windows, with such a diversity of hardwareThat choice may take its toll on part of the user base.

Meanwhile, the situation on macOS is moving in the opposite direction. There, they are migrating from previous web-based solutions to a native application developed with Catalyst, which, according to internal tests, consumes up to 60% fewer resources than its predecessor. Two platforms, two different strategies to solve the same problem.

Practical tips to improve the experience

If you want to continue using the desktop app and minimize the impact, there are several helpful settings. Disable automatic media downloads in very active chats, periodically clean up conversations with large files, and log out of linked devices you no longer use. This reduces the amount of data that the web container needs to process..

When you notice memory usage steadily increasing, close and reopen the application to force resource release. Keep Windows and Edge updated, as WebView2 relies on the system's browser engine and typically improves efficiency with newer versions. It also helps to limit the number of open windows and views. in parallel.

If your computer has limited RAM, consider using the web version directly in your preferred browser, pinning it as an application with a shortcut. It's a simple solution and, in some cases, lighter than the desktop container. Access and notifications work well in most modern browsers.

For those who make a lot of video calls, closing other apps that use GPUs or limiting browser tabs open in the background can smooth out the experience. Avoiding overlapping graphics and network loads makes all the difference on laptops with limited storage capacity.

Alternatives: Telegram and what other options offer

Some users prefer alternatives for their features or privacy. Telegram, for example, is often mentioned as a very capable general-purpose platform, with desktop clients that work independently and without needing to repeat the linking process. Its cross-platform approach and the lightweight nature of its PC app They are attractive to those seeking immediacy and content consumption.

That doesn't mean that if your social and professional circles are on WhatsApp, you won't still need its desktop client. In that case, it's advisable to follow the previous tips and adjust your expectations with the new model. The service remains a leader and, in essence, delivers on its promises., although it no longer enjoys the native efficiency that the UWP stage brought.

For users who prioritize privacy above all else, there are other messaging options focused on encryption and stricter data policies. Even so, the strength of its groups and user base keeps WhatsApp in pole position in the segment. The challenge lies in balancing simplicity, performance, and scope..

After this journey, it is clear that WhatsApp for Windows has experienced a technical ups and downs that influence how the application feels on the desktop. The move from Electron to UWP was a major improvement.The return to a WebView2 container brings development advantages but also higher resource costs. If you install from the Microsoft Store, link your phone with a QR code, and adjust a few parameters, you can continue using the client comfortably. For computers with limited memory or very old devices, using the web version in a browser is usually the most sensible option, while those looking for lightweight alternatives can look to Telegram and other efficient native apps.

Related article:

Complete guide to the best web browsers: comparison, advantages, performance, and privacy