[Development] Remove OSX 10.6 Build?

[Robert Knight]

> 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.

On 23 January 2014 21:35, Jan Farø <jan.faroe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 24/01/2014, at 03.46, Alexis Menard <menard at kde.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jan Farø <jan.faroe at 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 Running on outdated graphic cards with outdated graphic drivers is also not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 at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>