Qt and windows vista

[munna]

Hi,

Is Qt ready for windows vista?
Has someone looked into sparkel and winFX?

[!Ci]

I think Vista has a new WinApi (or it's changed very much) so qt without rebuilding may have problems with this OS...

[yop]

I wouldn't worry:

Prepare for Windows Vistaâ„¢ Today
Since the days of Windows 3.11, Trolltech has a proven track record of remaining at the leading edge of development on the Windows platform. Trolltech’s continuing goal is to ensure that Qt applications created today will always remain current. Qt future-proofs your applications, freeing you to focus on value-adding innovation.

from http://www.trolltech.com/pdf/Qt_Windows_DS_A4.pdf

[katrina]

I ain't scared. I doubt our friends at Trolltech will let us down by not ensuring Vista compatibility (or worst case scenario coming out with a Vista-specific version)

Katrina

[axeljaeger]

Vista is still 9-10 month away. Most of the current windows programms have to run on vista. Otherwise no one uses vista because every app has to be ported. Then MS loses it's biggest argument pro windows: A lot of software. People could also port to linux if they'd have to port anyway.

Trolltech will port Qt4 to Vista because it's their business. They cannot afford stop supporting the windows plattform because I think they sell a lot of licenses there. I'm not a Trolltech employee so this are not insider informations but my personal guess.

However, I think you should not be scared that much about Windows Vista: It looks a lot like the next version of windows and not like something absolute new.

MS is good at telling us: "But wait until the next release." They called Windows XP the most important release of Windows since Windows 95. From the techical point of view, it is a Windows 2000 with some extra spice. Look at the internal version numbers: Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5, XP is 5.1.

People might guess that Vista is either 5.1.1, 5.2 or 6.0

But it's still Windows.

MS is also good in inventing names: Isn't WinFX renamed to Windows Presentation Framework now? No one speaks about TCPA but about NGSCB. They are changing names even before the product is out. This might be the reason why a lot of people are scared that Vista will bring so much new technology because they hear a lot of names. I think there is even a name out for the .net-successor.

[MarkoSan]

I think Vista has a new WinApi (or it's changed very much) so qt without rebuilding may have problems with this OS...

Everything and everyone has problems with this family of OS, since it's MICROSOFT. Qt is not guilty here.

[GreyGeek]

It doesn't matter to us if QT is ready for VISTA.

One reason why we chose QT is BECAUSE it is cross platform... i.e., the same source compiles to the native binary on both platforms. We are moving ALL of our development away from dependency on Windows or Microsoft apps. Our development paradigm is now the Oracle (or PostgreSQL) backend with QT/C++ for development.

I've already proved by demonstration that the Homestead app written for a Windows platform will compile under Linux with no problems. In fact, the Homestead app compiles 3 or 4 times faster under Linux than it does under a DOS box on Win2K.

IF VISTA has to be backwards compatible for the sake of the legacy Windows apps, and it does, then it will have to have a Titanium clad sandbox to keep it secure and stable. Is Microsoft up to that task? If they've done what Apple did and use a knock-off of FreeBSD for their kernel then VISTA should be safe enough. But, Microsoft has a habit of turning a silk purse into a sow's ear.

[McToo]

If they've done what Apple did and use a knock-off of FreeBSD for their kernel then VISTA should be safe enough. But, Microsoft has a habit of turning a silk purse into a sow's ear.

You mean like they did when they tried to reinvent VMS and called it, what was it now, oh yes, Windows NT!

[GreyGeek]

You mean like they did when they tried to reinvent VMS and called it, what was it now, oh yes, Windows NT!

Hey, I used to run NT 3.5 and 4.0 when I first started work here. They were somewhat better than Win95 in stability, especially 4.0. There used to be a website called "BugToasters" (you can see it in the "wayback archives") which tabluted crashes per unit of time for all versions of Windows using a TSR which reported crashes back to the BugToasters mother ship as they occured. It turns out that regardless of the version, with the exception of ME, most versions of Windows crashed an average of 20 times/unit. Even XP. ME was exceptionally poor.

I found that my W2K workstation had a crash counter in the register which stopped sending reports home to Redmond after the 10th crash. It also has a phantom reboot algorithm which attempts to recover from a crash without the BSOD by momentarily freezing the screen and attempting to restore stability by reloading the environment and returning to where you were when the crash occured. I call it Microsoft's "Phantom Reboot". All in all, my W2K box is pretty stable, but it runs in cycles. Sometimes I'll get a string of crashes -- two or three per day for several days in a row -- then it will be stable for months at a time. The more frequently I reboot the more stable it is. Since I dual boot to SimplyMEPIS 3.4.2rc1 I frequently reboot so W2K is as stable as Linux, now.

There used to be a website called "F**KMicrosoft.com" which documented the Phantom Reboot and the audit trail feature that Win95, Win98 and XP have. It's a 10MB file that keeps a list of all the URLs you visit while surfing and when it gets full it phones home to Redmond, dumps the contents of the file, empties the file and starts over. The site changed its name and I don't remember what the new name is, but as of a year or so ago it was still active. If it's gone you can probably read what I've mentioned in the "wayback machine" internet archives.