To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You think Qt slowed them down?
By far it did, and drayned a lot of money in the process.
it would estimate the time taken to make a Qt interface/application set (browser/mail/media player) of comparable quality to the current (gtk) n900 stack, to be around 3 months for a moderate sized team
You dream to much, and the reality says the contrary.
It would be faster, it would be portable and it would be feasible
"It would" differs from "It does", being multiplatform brings zero to the table, it just need to run well on Nokia phones.
The n900 was 5 years late
In the contrary, it was a phone ahead of its time, many many agree with me.
I owned a n900 for exactly 2 weeks:
GPS locking time was horrendeous; the need to wait more than 5 minutes to lock-in is too much.
The video output was hillarious. the 3.5" screen had 800 pixel (width) and the video out 640 pixels; the video output changed proportions: every circle on the n900 was an ellipse on the TV. Great!
There was more but this is what comes to mind as soon I think of the n900.





Member since:
2010-10-13
You think Qt slowed them down?
I would estimate the time taken to make a Qt interface/application set (browser/mail/media player) of comparable quality to the current (gtk) n900 stack, to be around 3 months for a moderate sized team.
It would be faster, it would be portable and it would be feasible. It would not have been QML, that was not out the door, but it would have been Qt as known and loved by legions, and the KDE dudes could have gone to town on the resulting device.
The n900 was 5 years late, under loved and an only child. Nokia rode a lone horse (Symbian) architected with way too much of an emphasis on performance (at the cost of extensibility, convenience and broad usage) straight into the ground.