-----Forwarded Message----- From: "Mohr, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Qt/E vs. X11 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:42:05 -0600
I work with Educational & Productivity Solutions, a business unit of Texas Instruments (TX). We are currently searching for Qt Developers in Linux team. This position deals with devices/products for the classroom. Would you or someone you know be interested in this opportunity? I would appreciate any feedback you can give. Best regards, Brian Mohr -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael L Torrie Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 10:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Qt/E vs. X11 On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 05:32, Valentin Heinitz wrote: > Hi André, > > You are right. There are pro's and contras. > This article is for those, who think X is KDE. > If i had read it 2 years ago, it would be a great help for me. Don't forget also that an X11 environment can run on a system with as low as 8 mb of ram (IBM's linux watch for example). There is a tiny embedded X server called kdrive which has a footprint smaller than a meg and has all the font handling and drawing features of a regular XFree86 server. Combine that with Qt/X11 or gtk/X11 and I think you have almost all the advantages of Qt/E but you're not locked down or limited to just one programming language and API. Another thing to consider is that using Qt/E means that you can only use Qt/E, since it takes over the whole display. This could be a good thing, or a bad thing. You are totally limited to writing in C++, which is also a good or bad thing. But you can't mix any other embedded APIs (graphical) with Qt/E apps. Except for deep integration with input methods (which X11-based environments are now starting to have as good of tools), I don't see much advantage to Qt/E over Qt/X11 on any device under 32 MB of flash/8 MB Ram. (Which means they both still have their place). For an example of what an X11-based embedded environment can look like, see http://gpe.handhelds.org. Michael > > Beyond, Let's go through the points you mentiond. > > -support. > XFree86 Project exists a long time. There is a lot of documentation. > A bug in Qt/E is more possible than in XFree86 > > > -CPU. > I tested Qt/E 2 years ago. My App looked rather slower than faster > on the same PC. Maybe it did sth. wrong. > > > -features. Qt/E, > That is complitely the other way round. Are there Acrobat Reader > , Xine, ... for Qt/e. In X11 Version You can embed any X11 app. > in yours. > > > -how much memory > This was also our mistake. At the time we startet with our system, > 32 Mb CF costed 150 $, We decided to use 8 Mb CF and Qt/e. > As our target PC (1,5 yeas later) was manufactured, the prices > for CF felt down. 8 MB cost now probably more than 128 Mb CF > > Qt/E is best suited for smaller , not Intel x86 based systems. > > > regards. > > Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2003 10:52 schrieb André Somers: > > > On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:39, Valentin Heinitz wrote: > > > for those, who just started working with Qt, and decide > > > wether use Qt/E od Qt +X11 this may be a decision help. > > > > > > http://heinitz-it.de/projects/qte_vs_x/index.html > > > > > > any feedback is apreciated. > > > > I don't think you're doing the question at hand real justice. There is more > > than memory considderations when choosing a windowing system for an > > embedded environment, although memory may be an important factor. You are > > basicly saying: if you have enough memory, you should use X11. A couple of > > these other factors may be: > > -support. Trolltech can support Qt/E completely, while for X11 you are > > depending on.... who exactly? > > -CPU. I'm not sure, I but I'm guessing Qt/E can be lighter than a Qt/X11 > > combo. > > -features. Qt/E, has some additional features to Qt/11, especially for > > embedded systems, that is in the X11 version supplied by the windowmanager > > or KDE or GNOME. Think about interprocess messaging for instance. > > -how much memory do you need for your own application? Having 32 Megs of > > memory and having 25 taken up by the system allready doesn't leave a lot of > > space for your own applications, especially if they need to have a lot of > > data available. > > > > Regards, > > > > André -- Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
