On 2018-12-18 17:34, Frank Hemer wrote:
Indeed - working in medical IT this is the major issue for me.
Frank
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 17:28:05 CET Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 03:56:47 PST Kai Koehne wrote:
Anyhow, we don't want to maintain two different MinGW builds; there was
quite some popular demand for 64 bits (see e.g.
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-35288), so we switched to 64 bit in
Qt 5.12. I don't see us switching back until there's clear evidence that
the majority would prefer 32 bit.
I think the point is not to switch, but to provide an additional build. I'm
going to guess the requestors' argument is going to be that they still need
to ship 32-bit applications for Windows, since they still have users with
32-bit Windows, despite running on a 64-bit CPU.
Also, if you look in 5.12's Maintenance Tool and the available
components for Windows, MinGW has one (1) and UWP has six (6) choices.
Now about UWP. earlier this year Microsoft's Office Team ditched their
UWP flavor of MS Office and now the Edge team has done the same (since
Chromium will never be an UWP app). I bet you a beer with anyone having
access to the download numbers of those 6 different UWP Qt 5.12
components, that the # of downloads for them has steadily decreased all
of this year. Most likely UWP is heading to the same place in the sky
where Silverlight etc. are. So I mean if the # of component slots in
Maintenance Tool is a limiting factor, consider tossing the 3 MSVC-2015
UWP ones to make room for the MinGW 32-bit one.
Rgrds Henry
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
