The thing is, the Ming were purchasing European weapons, such as the arquebus, in reasonably large numbers, and were relatively well aware of technical innovations in the West. I would say that an important event to consider was the Battle of Sarhu, in which a mounted nomadic army defeated a large force of gunpowder infantry (in defiance of historical trends). This seemed to be give credence to traditional forms of warfare over modern gunpowder weapons.
The Ming had been following a trend of upgrading their weapons over the centuries, and there was keen interest in developments in the West. The Qing did not, and indeed somewhat disdained gunpowder weapons and they were allowed to become dated. If the Ming survived, the trend towards an all-gunpowder army would not have been interrupted. I would suggest that the centre of gunpowder weapon innovation would continue to be Europe, but a surviving Ming would likely possess a much more modern gunpowder army than the OTL Qing did. Sure, there might be a lag in terms of adoption by the Chinese, but such lags existed within Europe as well, and China at least brings other advantages to the table.
I also believe there would be more trade contacts with the West. People have a bad impression of the Ming due to the curtailing of Zheng He's voyages and such, but compared to the way the Qing went around destroying port facilities and seashore towns they weren't as bad.
There would likely be a gap in development between a surviving Ming and Europe. But that gap would probably be comparatively smaller than the gap between the OTL Qing and Europe, and more easily bridged. That said, it could have negative effects. A backwards China with a more modern army might be able to keep modern peoples at bay for even longer than OTL, without fundamentally changing. A Boxer Rebellion analogue in a 1910's technological environment is rather horrifying to think about.