Someone should start a thread for all the "workarounds"

Sometimes I read statements in this forum that show a serious lack of open mind. The UI has evolved considerably since the inception of Mac and Windows. I still remember some people who hated graphical interfaces so much, they dismissed it as “toyish”. Case in point, Lotus 1-2-3, which at one point was installed on every other PC. Their reactionary attitude was their demise, to the great benefit of Excel.

I developed quite a few apps using Web 1.00, and have no intention to port them to Web 2.00, unless some drastic change in Linux rendered that necessary. Yet, in this very forum Web channel, before Web 2.00, I saw quite a few people who wanted to design web apps that looked like web sites.

My personal preferences are not an absolute truth. There are 1.17 Billion web sites today. It must mean something in terms of UI.


I guess the point I’ve been trying to make is that within the enterprise circles I associate professionally the pendulum is definitely swinging back the other way. From another perspective, at home my wife works for one of the country’s largest insurance companies. I watch her struggle daily with “all these stupid websites I have to deal with”. She’s quite familiar with the workflow efficient software I deliver and says quite often, “They should hire you to fix this mess”.

No, when it comes to having an open mind I pick efficiency over style every time! Especially when it turns out to be “last year’s style”.

1 Like

That is because you probably develop business software. In that case, Web 1.00 is probably much better suited, because it has the attributes of Desktop. Keyboard navigation is also important in that setting.

However, there are other cases where “cute” is more important, for instance commerce. An enormous number of visitors also use mobile devices, which require touch navigation.

There is no one size fits all.


Bingo! Business related software is my bread and butter and I’m definitely not alone in that. Not that other development markets aren’t important but don’t remove my tool of choice in favor of those other markets.


I’ve never had a problem developing Web 1.0 apps that run great on mobile using almost 100% Xojo code with almost no JavaScript or CSS. In-fact that’s one of my biggest selling points. My “psudo-desktop” Web 1.0 business apps simultaneously run well on iPads. They just need to be scaled/formatted properly. Also, many of my Web 1.0 apps are often considered “cute”. Being creative is always important!

Exactly! That’s why I say don’t eliminate our long-time tool of choice, Xojo Web 1.0. Release a separate product (call it Web Classic) for those of us who want and need it. An “orphaned” 2019 version is NOT the same thing.


This is sadly a lost cause though, no way in h… they are going to do that now :cry:

Never say never. Xojo has made missteps in the past and finally did get back on the true RB/RS/Xojo path. Xojo and its predecessors have always been a tool that’s easily accessible to all levels of programming experience. Web 1.0 fits that bill nicely. Web 2.0 definitely does not.


As far as I know, Web 1.00 apps will continue to run just fine. Xojo clearly stated that they are going to continue supporting Web 1.00 Yes, We Still Support Your Web 1.0 Projects – Xojo Programming Blog

It is IMHO an error to jump into Web 2.00 to create desktop-like web apps.

I agree with 99% of what you have posted in this thread but I don’t think Xojo will provide much/any support for Web 1.0 any longer.

Xojos blog post about supporting Web 1.0 is now two years old. I think Dana’s comment here shows how much support they now give to Web 1.0;

1 Like

Not fixing bugs in a very stable product is OK.

The obsession to always use the very latest version is sometimes misguided. Web 2.00 is still raw and far from being as stable as Web 1.00.

In the same vein, I still use 2016R3 for Windows apps, because it still supports full transparency. I don’t care about the bells and whistles on more recent versions. Pseudo transparency won’t cut it for me.


Personally I like the web apps that look/feel like desktop apps paradigm. My users not so much, they want apps that look “modern”.

1 Like

Are they business users who want efficiency or other types of users preferring to focus on style?

BTW a number of my established Web 1.0 customers have commented my “browser apps” look too much like a website. Can you imagine what they’d say if I took them down this full website-like direction?

Business users are business users! They may "talk’ about style but in the end they’re mostly interested in workflow efficiency and the shortest time of development. Web 1.0 was aces at both.

From the blog post:

Having said that, should you discover that your app is failing in some way due to an OS or web browser update, please contact us and we will do what we can do (to) resolve the issue.

What I read here is that Xojo:

  • will not create a Xojo Web Classic product
  • will focus on bugs/features for Xojo Web (Web 2)
  • is betting in that there is no OS/Browser update that breaks Web 1

In other words, Web 2 is the product that will receive fixes/features.

I hope Web 1 will continue working for many years.

Anyway, I think we are off-topic now, there will be no “workarounds” thread.

1 Like

Then again:



The wrong road for you could be the right one for others.

  • Xojo 2020r1 introduced Web 2 as a replacement of Web 1.
  • There is a new Xojo developer just for Web 2 (he started in March if I remember correctly) and doing a good job fixing bugs.
  • Xojo believes Web 2 is the right path.

There is no “turn around”. There are other Xojo users using Web 2 right now and selling applications to clients.

I see two big complains:

  • missing features and bugs in Web 2
  • Web 2 looks too much like a website and not a web app

I agree with the first and I believe Web 2 will be a much better product down the road (may take a couple of release to see the improvements and some more to be a good option).

For the second point, we can change the bootstrap theme to match whatever the client wants or needs. We can do Web 1 apps that look more like websites (if we want).

The beauty of Xojo Web 1 is that you can still use it and create great products for you clients (no new license needed for more than 2 years). When that is no longer an option I bet Web 2 will be more than good enough, just change the bootstrap or a new CSS Style option (fingers crossed) to make your Web 2 application look exactly as you client wants (desktop app, website or something in the middle).

As I re-read this thread I see that the majority of users here are sticking with Web 1.0 “for now” and I’ll likely do the same (rather than switch to a different technology). The one point, however, that I can’t get away from is that Web 2.0 is a major deviation from the RealBASIC, Real Studio, and Xojo core mission which was to provide a product that fits the needs of programmers at all experience levels. Forcing customers into using other languages and technologies is a major deviation from that mission. And THAT is what I mean by the wrong road. It’s Geoff’s company and I’ll always respect him, but web 2.0 is not Xojo. Nuff said.


“modern” web apps is NOT just bootstrap, both Metro and Material styles could be done easily on web 1.0

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with most of what you posted (I don’t believe we will see Xojo Web Classic).

I read from Ricardo (the Xojo Web developer) that one of his goals is to “shield” Xojo users from CSS/JS as much as possible. I understand that will take time because he also needs to fix bugs and I think that is priority one.

I don’t think Xojo wants many (most?) of his Web users to just stick to Web 1 and not contribute with a new license. I’m sure that the goal is to make Web 2 better.

If you want/need some features in Web 2 please file a Feature Request.