WinXp and latest QT?



  • I know it's not QT's fault, but I'm just curious: it became such a major pile of dung that nobody even cares that apps do not run anymore on WinXP? Last time I checked, XP's market share is by far higher than Linux and MacOS combined tripled.
    I'm kind of curious... does anybody make some tests before making releases? The installer offers to install all kinds of flavors. Is there any one that's known to work? I use vs2012/vs2013, I guess I cannot take QT for other VS version, right?
    By the way, I still by far preffer VS 2008 for all kids of reasons. Can QT be compiler for VS2008? Last time I tried I failed miserably...


  • Moderators

    Qt should still compile using VS 2008, just follow the "guide":http://qt-project.org/wiki/Building_Qt_5_from_Git (you can skip the GIT stuff and download the .zip file with Qt source code). If you encounter errors, please ask here for help. A general advice from me would be to skip the WebKit module: it's usually the biggest source of compilation errors.

    As for testing: I do not know. You can ask on the Release mailing list.



  • I tried it, it's just doesn't build at all, and I need WebKit unfortunately.
    But the main question remains: 5.2.1, or 5.3 do not work on WinXP. If you install it and simply try to run any app from bin folder you'll get "is not a valid Win32 application". Obviously, MS is just nuts here breaking WinXp compat, totally their fault, yet, "there are known ways to make it work":http://tedwvc.wordpress.com/. by either using Vs2012-xp toolset, or, even better, by defining -D_ATL_XP_TARGETING and setting linker the “Minimum Required Version” in project properties under Linker – System to 5.01



  • Also, i find it amazing to do this kind of installer, I'm sure there were thousands of complaints. If I use latest 5.3. installer it starts by asking install path (c:\QT) and then I can select some versions of QT to be installer (Vs2012 with opengl, or mingw build). From the start, default selection are some insane. Honestly, it should be none selected an ddevs should explicitly say what they want to install. What I find amazing is that after I installed some qt version I cannot anymore use that installer and it won't go past c:\qt selection, yet it should have went ahead. It's just irritating... QT is meant for some professionals, why is so retarded and prevents me from installing where ever I want? It could have warned that it doesn't like something, but not completely preventing from installation. Also, FYI, obviously it doesn't simply install to c:\qt. Each version of qt goes into its own folder, that is, if I ran the installer again and select some other flavor of QT there wouldn't be any conflict.

    !http://oi60.tinypic.com/5l47j9.jpg(qt installer)!



  • regarding building QT. "You can check my history of trying":http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/28894, don't kid yourself that it's possible (in a sense that time taken will be worth trying). I think vs2008 builds aren't provided anymore because QT themselves cannot build it anymore with VS2008. It provides for example mingw builds... I'm pretty sure that vs2008 would have more demand that mingw builds.



  • Hi, about WinXP, I normally build my app with VS2012 and I do one setting in Projects/Build Environment. Then my app deploys and runs fine on Windows XP, because as you say, there still are a lot of XP machines out there.
    I wrote about "in my blog":http://www.tripleboot.org/?p=423


  • Moderators

    [quote author="pps883" date="1400870261"]Also, i find it amazing to do this kind of installer, I'm sure there were thousands of complaints.[/quote]

    You are right in that assumption.

    [quote]QT is meant for some professionals, why is so retarded and prevents me from installing where ever I want?[/quote]

    Yes, which is why we usually compile Qt on our own ;-)



  • Why would you want to compile with an ancient toolset that has no C++11 support and miserable optimizations?..



  • My 2 cents: I understand why many people still prefer VS2008 before 2010, 2012 or 2013, In the same way many prefer to work in Windows 7 instead of 8 or 8.1. Agreed about the toolchain, of course it's better in VS2013 and no C++11 etc but the psychology or arrogance or "we know better than you" feeling you get with those later products :-(



  • [quote author="Violet Giraffe" date="1400913938"]Why would you want to compile with an ancient toolset that has no C++11 support and miserable optimizations?..[/quote]

    I have specific reasons why I still prefer or need 2008 over anything else.

    1. I do lots of ARM coding. WinRT is the best for debugging ARM code on devices (and it requires vs2012/2013) compared to all that mumbo jumbo with gcc/android mess (only xcode and iOS are more or less OK). However, I find it insanely incredible that a gigantic bug is built into the WinRT kernel: OS jumps out to Thumb mode from kernel, which essentially totally outlaws regular ARM code on WinRT. For that reason alone, I still keep one of the latest WinMobile6 phones on my desk that I use regularly if I need to step through ARM asm, and only 2008 can do WinMo6, newer versions aren't capable anymore.
    2. Some retard at VS team decided change old garbage intellisence implementation for another implementation that's equally garbage, and on top of that it adds some constraints and inconveniences. If you heavily rely on VS intellisense in your projects, I'm sure you know what I'm taking about. The new xml based intellisense is just pure huge mistake to chose xml for something that's full of chars that must be html encoded (e.g. <,>, & etc). On top of that they make it impossible to display some structures that vs2008 displayed perfectly (it's a huge complain on ms boards that you cannot display hash based maps with new intellisense). I think that there is way to delete some dll that's responsible for new intellisense and old autoexp.dat starts to work in newer VS, but I didn't try. Other than that, I really wish I could switch to new VS and write my own visualizers that display in debugger YUV samples, that would be super cool :)
    3. I totally disagree that Vs2008 doesn't optimize well. I pretty much don't care about optimizations in x86 code and don't care about c++11. I'd like to use some parts of it, but that would kill my ability to use vs2008 and run on WinMo6 device. Regarding optimizations... I find it quite surprising and interesting that VS2008 that never did ARM compilers before ships with ARM compiler that optimizes very well, comparable to GCC that's 5 years newer that MS compiler (maybe MS uses something directly from ARM? even their assembler is very much similar to arm's armasm, it even uses the same names for binaries).
    1. I have lots of custom rules files that completely don't work anymore in later VS versions. I tried hard to convert, I came to conclusion that new Vs MSBuild integration is broken shit, it just doesn't work for me.
    2. I use heavily dbghlp.dll in my projects. When I tried to switch to Vs2012 I got some weird behavior, performance related when loading symbols. Don't remember details, but when i got that shit, I abandoned VS2012 right away: it created issues that wouldn't be acceptable by many developers at my work.

    By the way, I don't get “we know better than you” feeling from Vs2012/vs2013. I really like them, but I cannot use them. Vs2010 was complete pile of ass broken junk. 2012/2013 seem like good products (similarly to good quality that 2008 turned out to be), but I simply cannot switch to newer once because it would cause daily inconveniences in my daily tasks that I do at work.



  • [quote author="sierdzio" date="1400905843"][quote author="pps883" date="1400870261"]Also, i find it amazing to do this kind of installer, I'm sure there were thousands of complaints.[/quote]

    You are right in that assumption.

    [quote]QT is meant for some professionals, why is so retarded and prevents me from installing where ever I want?[/quote]

    Yes, which is why we usually compile Qt on our own ;-)[/quote]

    That's what we also did originally (partly because there was a bug in 4.x QT that affected us and I had to fix it). But then, every time when somebody uses stock QT and had issues and complaints I had to deal with that and waste time. I still don't get why QT doesn't release FULL shit with so that I could run the script and generate the same installer that's distributed here (perhaps it's all somewhere available, but it takes too much time to get it working). So, at the end we decided to try to stick to QT as it is... but it doesn't seem like it's working well.
    Oh yes, by the way, regarding dbghlp.dll... I would like to express my endless thanks to QT team for weird decision to leak memory all over the place in newer QT. Basically, the type of leak that's leaked only once isn't a real leak, however, it really creates lots of inconveniences with tools that help with debugging leaks. For this reason alone I'm thinking to abandon QT 5.x and get back to 4.x, but I'm afraid that this way we'll get stuck with old product that goes nowhere.


  • Moderators

    [quote author="pps883" date="1401064336"]I still don't get why QT doesn't release FULL shit with so that I could run the script and generate the same installer that's distributed here (perhaps it's all somewhere available, but it takes too much time to get it working). [/quote]

    "Link":https://qt.gitorious.org/qtsdk.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Qt Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.