BREAKING: QLab 5 is out... and it is *METAL*. <smirk>

Jay Ashworth

Well-Known Member
And, with the Playlist mode for group cues, I take back every mean thing I've ever thought about my namesake. Ok, maybe 2/3s of them...

Full new-feech list (and 50 points to Baltimore for putting in all the work on the section headers):

 

Mac Hosehead

Well-Known Member
t *requires* OS/X 11.x. Well, I think that means it won't run on my Mac Mini (and lots of other perfectly serviceable hardware) at all. Hopefully, support for Q4 will continue.
You might still be able to get Big Sur running on your Mac Mini. I have Monterey running on a 2008 MacPro.
https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/MODELS.html

I used QLab once running on a hackintosh Dell laptop for a Christmas show of Nutcracker selections. The choreographer had me play a selection and then came over and took a hard look at the laptop. I think she expected a Mac. The show went well.
 

chausman

Chase
Fight Leukemia
Since the new version uses Metal for graphics (at least for video cues) you might struggle with making those work with unsupported graphics cards.
 

Jay Ashworth

Well-Known Member
Yeah, Chase's concern was what made me wonder if that was worth trying, since the new Mini is only $649 at edu discount; it would be a *much* bigger hill to climb at 2x or 3x that price.

That said, I don't do much with video except the occasional crop or scale, so as long as they don't puke on such things gratiutously.
 

Mac Hosehead

Well-Known Member
Since the new version uses Metal for graphics (at least for video cues) you might struggle with making those work with unsupported graphics cards.
Indeed, I would have to say try it and see what works. There are post OS installation patches that are included with the software for unsupported graphics on many Macs. There are some limitations, however. You would have to look at the guide for your Mac model.

The new software seems to run OK on the old MacPro. I haven't run QLab for a while. I have a Metal-capable card installed now but I originally used Monterey on the card that came with it for many months.Screen Shot 2022-09-12 at 2.04.39 PM.png
 
Last edited:

Crisp image

Well-Known Member
A production company turned up to our venue yesterday with version 5. We all gasped and the PM asked why. We said it was only released in the last little while and we were all waiting for a bit until it settles and the bugs are exposed and fixed. Her response was "I guess we will be the test case then"
I went home before the show. I guess it worked:think:
 

Sam Kusnetz

Member
we will continue to support QLab 4 for quite a while.

the decision to have QLab 5 require macOS 11 or newer is based on longevity and on API features of macOS.

the longevity angle is this: supporting a version of macOS longer than apple themselves supporting it can be a serious challenge. some fixes to QLab 4 have been very difficult to build because we have to keep supporting macOS 10.10, so starting with the newest version of macOS possible gives us a head start against this sort of issue in four or five years' time. we decided NOT to require macOS 12, even though that was the current version of macOS when we released QLab 5, in the hopes of minimizing the number of folks with older Macs that we'd be boxing out.

ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere, right? with macOS 11, the line gets drawn at Macs that are eight years old or older. we feel that's as reasonable a line as any.
 

soundman

Well-Known Member
ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere, right? with macOS 11, the line gets drawn at Macs that are eight years old or older. we feel that's as reasonable a line as any.
I don't have a dog in the fight but I think that is a more than fair place to draw the line. With the reasonable cost of the software and updates I don't think it is too much to ask of users to have hardware from the current decade.

I wish the folks at Nemetschek would take a page from the Figure 53 book.
 

TimMc

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Chris & Sam answer questions and discuss QLab 5 on Office Hours.

Jump to 58:57 if you want to miss bypass the first hour's general Q&A.
 

Jay Ashworth

Well-Known Member
we will continue to support QLab 4 for quite a while.

the decision to have QLab 5 require macOS 11 or newer is based on longevity and on API features of macOS.

the longevity angle is this: supporting a version of macOS longer than apple themselves supporting it can be a serious challenge. some fixes to QLab 4 have been very difficult to build because we have to keep supporting macOS 10.10, so starting with the newest version of macOS possible gives us a head start against this sort of issue in four or five years' time. we decided NOT to require macOS 12, even though that was the current version of macOS when we released QLab 5, in the hopes of minimizing the number of folks with older Macs that we'd be boxing out.

ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere, right? with macOS 11, the line gets drawn at Macs that are eight years old or older. we feel that's as reasonable a line as any.

I can't argue. Your strategic decision is completely separate from the fact that after booking $95K in rebuild for our black box, we simply will not get replacements for our Late-2012 Minis for at least 2 years, maybe 3, and those simply will not run 11, ever. Unless I cheat.

But that's what drives our stance. When you stop supporting 4, I will have to run it barefoot until I can replace the machines. Or stop using it at all. So before then, presumably, I will have to put a permanent license on it instead of renting -- since I assume part of "EOS" is "we won't rent you licenses for it anymore either".... right?

Does Qlab phone home at all with a census of what hardware and OS it's running on?

What percentage of installs, free and licensed, are in the same boat as us?


[ For some reason, I tend to catch a fair amount of $EXPLETIVE on here for the financial constraints that being part of a state college imposes on me -- yes, I can still say that with a straight face in the same paragraph with "$95K refit of our black box"; sorry, but that -- as Uncle Walter used to say -- is the way it is. ]
 
Last edited:

chausman

Chase
Fight Leukemia
A production company turned up to our venue yesterday with version 5. We all gasped and the PM asked why. We said it was only released in the last little while and we were all waiting for a bit until it settles and the bugs are exposed and fixed. Her response was "I guess we will be the test case then"
I went home before the show. I guess it worked:think:
I've got multiple installations of QLab 5 running some Halloween attractions and have had no issues with reliability. And there's some very welcome changes, like Mic cues allowing for separate input and output patches, or the changes to icons for groups operating in different modes. Also having OSC cues that have built in commands for devices are pretty neat. It drastically simplified automating mixing with an X32 rack.
 

Sam Kusnetz

Member
When you stop supporting 4, I will have to run it barefoot until I can replace the machines. Or stop using it at all. So before then, presumably, I will have to put a permanent license on it instead of renting -- since I assume part of "EOS" is "we won't rent you licenses for it anymore either".... right?

i'm afraid i don't know what either "barefoot" or "EOS" means in this context, but i can say that QLab 4 licenses are no longer for sale or rent. QLab version 4.7 supports v5 licenses, so you can continue to buy or rent licenses that will work with 4.7 at least until QLab 6 is release, for which we have no current plans.

Does Qlab phone home at all with a census of what hardware and OS it's running on?

no.

What percentage of installs, free and licensed, are in the same boat as us?

i couldn't begin to guess, but also what do you mean the same boat? do you mean unable to upgrade hardware to macOS 11-compatible, or do you mean committed to a rental license ecosystem for an older version of QLab? or both?
 

ScottT

Lighting Programmer
[ For some reason, I tend to catch a fair amount of $EXPLETIVE on here for the financial constraints that being part of a state college imposes on me -- yes, I can still say that with a straight face in the same paragraph with "$95K refit of our black box"; sorry, but that -- as Uncle Walter used to say -- is the way it is. ]
And those financial constraints go both ways. Building software for a wide range of hardware, in a situation where failure is unacceptable, is expensive and time consuming.

You get flack because of the lack of understanding that those constraints go both ways.
 

Jay Ashworth

Well-Known Member
And those financial constraints go both ways. Building software for a wide range of hardware, in a situation where failure is unacceptable, is expensive and time consuming.

You get flack because of the lack of understanding that those constraints go both ways.
I've been a developer since about 1983, I'm not at all uncognizant of that fact.

The underlying problem here is that Apple, as an OS/Hardware vendor, is sticking up software developers like y'all, using non-OS add ons to yank you forwards off of old OSs and Hardware *they* don't want to support anymore, so that *you* take the heat from users like me... instead of them.

[ Apologies, Scott; I missed that the reply was from you, not Sam; he/53 was the "you" I was addressing there. ]

And by "barefoot", I mean, "still able to run, but not supported by the vendor.

As long as my rental days/dollars roll forward to 5.x and will still license the EOL 4.x release, I'm ok with that.
 
Last edited:

almorton

Well-Known Member
Microsoft are doing a similar trick with Windows 11, of course. My core i5 PC simply won't run windows 11 because the mobo is missing the security chip. Rather more of a problem to fix that than getting my partner's Mac Pro 5,1 to upgrade its OS was - that was just a change of graphics card.
 

Users who are viewing this thread