> Dropping support for 10.6, and making it possible to clean up that code, > would in the mid-term free up resources that would make > it possible to spend more resources on better OS X integration in general > (or, would make the existing resources more efficient in doing so)?
That was the implicit assumption in my comment but I'm not in a position to comment on whether that is accurate or not. Regards, Rob. On 27 January 2014 09:08, Ziller Eike <eike.zil...@digia.com> wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Robert Knight <robertkni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> In regards to users of Mac OS Qt applications: I’m am extremely confident >>> that more Mac OS applications would be/have been written in Qt, >>> if the priority for native looking widget support was higher. Mac OS users >>> are notorious for their attention to detail and noticing a non-native L&F. >>> Forcing application developers to resort to Objective C/Cocoa/style sheet >>> hacks/whatever in order to make the UI look and behave more >>> native sort of defies the notion of a cross platform framework. >> >> Indeed. In terms of diverting resources away from supporting older >> versions of OS X this is probably going be much more compelling for Qt >> users than talk of being able to use C++11, ARC, newer naive APIs etc. >> inside Qt itself. >> >> As an aside, in a company with enough resources to have product >> designers, the designers are highly likely to be using Macs and their >> impressions of Qt apps there tend to carry over to discussions about >> what platforms to base other versions of a cross-platform app on. So >> if Digia want to sell commercial licenses to use Qt on iOS, Android >> etc. investment in Mac L&F may be quite worthwhile. > > So what’s the relationship of that discussion on quality of Qt on OS X, to > the discussion on supporting 10.6 or not? > Dropping support for 10.6, and making it possible to clean up that code, > would in the mid-term free up resources that would make it possible to spend > more resources on better OS X integration in general (or, would make the > existing resources more efficient in doing so)? > >> On 23 January 2014 21:35, Jan Farø <jan.fa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 24/01/2014, at 03.46, Alexis Menard <men...@kde.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jan Farø <jan.fa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I don’t think anybody has mentioned the lack of ability to upgrade >>>> hardware - mostly because of financial issues, I suppose. 10.6 is as far as >>>> I know the last Mac OS to support 32 bit systems. Previous versions of my >>>> own software supported PPC and down to Mac OS 10.4, which gave me a >>>> considerable user base from that segment. Percentages aside, there’s still >>>> a >>>> LOT of people sitting with old hardware, simply because they cannot afford >>>> to upgrade. >>>> >>> >>> But is that a significant part of the Mac OS X users or users of Mac OS X Qt >>> applications? I seriously doubt so. Let's be realistic, less and less >>> software are supporting PPC nowadays, the best you can get is a 32/64 bits >>> binary for Mac OS. Last machines from Apple with 32 bits only processor : >>> 2006. >>> >>> One other point is that Qt5 is about QML and is pushing towards its usage on >>> the desktop with better components for it with a modern GL scene graph. >>> Running on outdated graphic cards with outdated graphic drivers is also not >>> something people want to bother testing and fixing. >>> >>> >>> I completely agree in regards to PPC support. >>> >>> In regards to users of Mac OS Qt applications: I’m am extremely confident >>> that more Mac OS applications would be/have been written in Qt, if the >>> priority for native looking widget support was higher. Mac OS users are >>> notorious for their attention to detail and noticing a non-native L&F. >>> Forcing application developers to resort to Objective C/Cocoa/style sheet >>> hacks/whatever in order to make the UI look and behave more native sort of >>> defies the notion of a cross platform framework. >>> >>> >>> Again let's balance the cost of the maintenance of the code of 10.6 vs >>> supporting few users stuck in the past? If they must stick in the past for >>> various reasons (financial or others) then they can just use Qt4, it works >>> just fine for Mac OS 10.6 or even Qt5 released versions. Why such users >>> would care of modern Qt5 applications? >>> >>> >>> Qt4 looks suboptimal on Mac OS. It still has problems with some of the list >>> widgets. Among other things. Qt5 has several showstopper issues on Mac OS, >>> some of which seems to finally being taken seriously (5.2.1?). You can’t >>> ship a quality application on Mac OS with Qt5.0 - Qt.5.2.0. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Development mailing list >>> Development@qt-project.org >>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Development mailing list >> Development@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > > -- > Eike Ziller, Senior Software Engineer - Digia, Qt > > Digia Germany GmbH, Rudower Chaussee 13, D-12489 Berlin > Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Tuula Haataja > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, > HRB 144331 B > _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
