Chrome uses Aura (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dev.chromium.org&#x2F;developers&#x2F;design-documents&#x2F;aura" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dev.chromium.org&#x2F;developers&#x2F;design-documents&#x2F;aura</a>)<p>I&#x27;d also argue that Qt applications are still &quot;native&quot; in that they run as a native EXE (or ELF on nix). Granted they don&#x27;t use Win32 APIs, but then calling them non-native because of that is a little like calling Windows OpenGL games non-native because they don&#x27;t use Direct3D. But that&#x27;s an aside point.<p>On the whole, I don&#x27;t think it makes sense to categorise Windows desktop applications by what toolkit they use. MS Office 2003 didn&#x27;t use Win32 toolbars. Office 2007 then introduced the ribbon bar, which changed in appearance in every subsequent release of MS Office. And even within MS Office, Microsoft doesn&#x27;t always follow the same design patterns (Office 2007 used ribbon in Word and Excel but not in Outlook). Even outside of MS Office, some Windows applications in WinXP used different menu bars to the ones provided by the Win32 APIs (you can see by looking at whether menu items go 3D or just highlight when you hover over them). One example was the difference between Windows Explorer and Notepad. Plus often older Windows utilities go completely unaltered for years, eg the add font dialog box in XP was still using Windows 3.1 APIs: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;apagreekkeys.org&#x2F;images&#x2F;addFont1.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;apagreekkeys.org&#x2F;images&#x2F;addFont1.jpg</a> ....and this is all without discussing the disruption Metro has caused.<p>I will grant you that in spite of these criticisms, Windows still fairs better than Linux in terms of uniformity. But it&#x27;s certainly not consistent enough to define anything that doesn&#x27;t use Win32 widgets as non-native.