On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:50:42 -0600 "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf@...> wrote: > > On Sunday 12 February 2012 02:20:38 Timothy Pearson wrote: > >> These are the exact reasons I stopped to the move to Qt4 and > >> picked up maintinance of Qt3 (now becoming TQt3). I gave the > >> conversion effort my best shot (which took many, many months of > >> effort) and stopped once it became apparent how extensive Qt4's > >> limitations were (especially in drawing operations and native X11 > >> window handling) and also how buggy Qt4 > >> really is. > > May I ask for the benchmarking results? I am seriously interested > > here as I > > think that I can provide you some valuable help here. My fear is > > that you had > > an incorrect benchmark (the experts call that phoronixing) and that > > your decision is because of that on false grounds. > > > > Especially important is to consider that graphics cards, drivers, > > what you render (widgets vs scenes), which Qt graphicssystem you > > use seriously influences the result. E.g. rendering widgets with > > raster might be a bad idea. > > > > Cheers > > Martin > > I do not have any benchmarks handy at the moment, although this is > simply due to the length of time from those tests to the writing of > this message. The upshot was that Qt4 is significantly slower when it > comes to rendering raster graphics (as you mentioned), and also when > large numbers of widgets are displayed on-screen. If I understand > some of the Qt changes, the raster performance was improved somewhat > in the latest versions of Qt4, but I don't know if the other problems > were addressed. > > As an aside, 3D graphics hardware is not only expensive, it is also > one of the most proprietary and least-understood components in a > typical computer (it also tends to burn out a lot, at least that is > my experience with anything other than an enterprise-grade nVidia > Quadro card). If nVidia and ATI experienced supply shortages (don't > laugh, remember the recent hard drive scarcity due to flooding in > Thailand) I would still need to be able to use my computers with > not-so-great backup graphics hardware, and possibly without good > OpenGL support. Almost all less than 5 years old PC hardware has either a nVidia, ATI or Intel GPU, that is not necessarily powerful but definitely has enough power to render standard controls with OpenGL. > > More practically, even slightly sluggish performance is quite > noticeable to power users. Many applications, upon converting from > Qt3 to Qt4, appeared to slow down noticeably. Even with a common Qt-internal style such as CDE or Win9x ? > > These are just my $0.02 and experiences in working with Qt 4.7. I am > open to looking at Qt4 again once Trolltech fixes the raster graphics > problem for good. It will be "fixed" with Qt5, which will have OpenGL ES 2.0 as the only graphics system. It had better work well with llvmpipe... > > Tim > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > trinity-devel-unsubscribe@... For additional > commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@... Read > list messages on the web archive: > http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to > top-post: > http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting >