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

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.

by no means am i trying to tell you how to feel about it, but i do want to say that i don’t felt “stuck up” by apple whatsoever. by and large i find apple’s OS releases to be centered around genuine improvements (technical problems like the mDNS fiasco notwithstanding.) i think apple gives folks good reason to upgrade, and plenty of space to NOT upgrade if they don’t want to. and i find it actually quite impressive how few macs get left behind with each release… big sur and catalina were both supported on an eight-year range of macs! the 32-bit to 64-bit transition was a notable exception to this, but there are meaningful technical advantages to apple cutting off 32-bit support, advantages shared by apple, developers, and users alike, so i don’t begrudge them that.

again, not telling you how to feel whatsoever. but for me, for us at figure 53, more has been gained by basing v5 on macOS 11 than has been lost, and i don’t feel forced into any corners.

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

i’ve never heard that term before and i quite like it.
 
"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."
If you really want to install Windows 11 in "barefoot" mode:
 
I think I've maybe seen all the hacks, just as there are hacks for Macs. There are caveats to all of them, such as ongoing updates and security releases, and the hack in that article doesn't remove the requirement completely, just waters it down.

My point isn't so much that there's no workaround, it's that it's not just an apple thing to make hardware requirements. I'm not sure how well Windows would tolerate an EGA, for example.
 
Hey Jay - Quick question that seemed appropriate to resurrect this thread to ask... Was the upgrade from QLab 4 to 5 free for a little while when it first came out? I swear it was free when I first looked, but I'm ALWAYS skeptical of new releases so I demurred, thinking I could just circle back to it when I was ready. Turns out I was wrong - just checked and now they want two hundred smackerroos to upgrade a license...

[edit] It's not really that important, I guess - I just figured maybe if I was wrong then it wouldn't be my own fault for waiting.
 
Hey Jay - Quick question that seemed appropriate to resurrect this thread to ask... Was the upgrade from QLab 4 to 5 free for a little while when it first came out?

the pricing for QLab 5 is exactly the same today as it was on launch day. you can trade in v4 licenses for store credit, and if you have enough to trade in you can end up with a free v5 license, but the actual price of the v5 license was never free.
 
the pricing for QLab 5 is exactly the same today as it was on launch day. you can trade in v4 licenses for store credit, and if you have enough to trade in you can end up with a free v5 license, but the actual price of the v5 license was never free.
I think the thrust of Will's question was "are the prices for v5 licenses higher than the equivalent v4 licenses were", and I think that answer is "yes", is it not?
 
i’ll leave it to will to say what the thrust of his question was; i only answered the actual question he asked.

but the answer to the question you just asked is yes, v5 licenses are more expensive than their corresponding v4 licenses were. the price increase, i feel bound to note, was our first since QLab 4 was released in 2016.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back