[Interest] Building 32-bit Qt 5 on Mac

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 24/04/12 02:34, Paul Miller wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen Chu wrote:
>> On 4/23/12 4:32 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> On 23/04/12 23:19, Paul Miller wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2012 1:19 PM, Stephen Chu wrote:
>>>>> Will 32-bit build be supported in Qt 5? Or we Mac guys will all have to
>>>>> force our users to 64-bit land?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how far back you need to support, but we dropped support
>>>> for 32 bit Mac last year. Pretty much every Mac built in the last 5
>>>> years has bee on a 64 bit architecture, and Leopard up has been fully 64
>>>> bit. We make imaging products and nobody has ever complained about lack
>>>> of 32 bit. Pretty much everyone in the industry is running Snow Leopard
>>>> or Lion these days.
>>>
>>> Are there 32bit-only 10.5 systems?  Can it even be installed on a Mac
>>> that lacks a 64bit CPU?
>>>
>>> It's a bit difficult to find accurate information.  I ask because Qt
>>> supports down to OS X 10.5.  10.4 is not supported (at least not with
>>> Cocoa, and Carbon was deprecated by Qt I think).  If 10.5 can't be
>>> installed on 32bit Macs, then it makes sense to build for 64bit.
>>>
>>> The same goes for the PowerPC 10.5 Macs though.  Can 10.5 be installed
>>> on 32bit-only PPCs?
>>
>> I am not worried about PPC at all. But 10.5 can be installed on 32-bit
>> PPC. And both 10.5 and 10.6 can be installed on 32-bit only Intel Macs.
>
> In the wise words of the great sage Mr. T - "I pity the fool still
> running a 32-bit Mac!".

Why?  What's wrong with a 32-bit Mac?  It can browse the web, you can do 
email, you can watch movies, you can listen to your music, you can print 
and scan stuff, and other things.  And it provides much more computing 
power than those tasks need even.

So again, why would you pity the "fool" who has a perfectly fine, 
working computer?