> > This should be cleared. Are we
> going to port trinity to qt4 or don't.
> > There are users in the IRC channel who ask about this,
> and I don't
> > really know how to respond, since it isn't clear to
> myself.
> > For what I understood: we won't port trinity to Qt4, we
> will add
> > possibility of using qt3 and qt4 together. Is this
> correct?
> 
> This is correct.  At one time there was a desire to
> port to Qt4, however
> months of solid work showed that Qt4 cannot provide the
> features needed to
> create a fast, efficient desktop geared towards
> mouse/keyboard interaction
> and high on-screen information content.

Okeydokey, but then what is the purpose of TQt?

I would like to see us formally address both questions in the wiki. I admit I remain confused about the whole picture. :( I would like to see a good writeup on the wiki discussing the technical details.

In any such public discussion we probably want to qualify your Qt4 observations. I have no reason to doubt your technical assessment of Qt4, nor am I qualified, but such statements deserve technical discussion. Possibly some benchmarks too. Otherwise fanboys and self-appointed nannies will raise a ruckus, regardless of the merits of such statements. Not that I care about fanatics, but you know the drill. :)

BTW, I have seen GTK supporters make similar statements about GTK1 versus GTK2, claiming GTK1 was much faster than GTK2.

As a side comment, in many ways my Windows for Workgroup 3.11 with the Norton Desktop on my 16 MB 486 machine (still runs!) is faster than any modern desktop environment. I have that same environment cloned on a PI class machine and the system screams. Hardware might improve at 2x the capacity every 18 months, but software seems to get 2x slower. :)

Darrell