Qt-based applications #3: Text Editors (1/2)

In this post we’ll take a look at some Qt-based text editors. Just like with the file managers I’ll split my post in two parts because there’s quite a number (I found 15!) of such editors out there.

While compiling my list of Qt-based editors, I came across something I hadn’t heard of before. A kind of application which is called non-distracting writer. At first I wasn’t sure whether to include these here, but they don’t fit into the category “Office application” either.
From my point of view they are close enough to text editors to include them here (they are written with the idea that the text is the only thing really important – and that’s pretty much what qualifies them as a text editor, though not a classical one).

The candidates

Here are the text editors that were tested (in alphabetical order):

Not tested

Many of the editors didn’t work right away. I got some of them to work in the end, but these are the ones that wouldn’t work at all and thus were not tested:

If anybody can get one or more of these to work on Arch, please let me know (send me PKGBUILDs?). And also tell me if you think that I forgot anything interesting!

Testing system

For this test I’ve set up the VMs as in my first Qt application test + Virtualbox guest additions this time. Here are the new values:

Arch Linux + Razor-qt (0.5.1)
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3810544 kb
Buffers: 9972 kb
Cached: 80280 kb
Rootfs: 936560 / 915
RAM used at startup: 242284 / ~237 MB

Catlooking Writer

The Catlooking Writer is a non-distracting writer based on Qt. It’s a full-screen application that’s intended to let you focus on the text only.

Razor-qt with Catlooking Writer

Installation

pacman -U catlooking-git-20130217-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz (1222156 Bytes / 1,2 MB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening Catlooking Writer via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ Catlooking Writer 1.0
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3795300 kb
Buffers: 9992 kb
Cached: 87616 kb
Rootfs: 938696 / 917M
RAM used at startup: 15244 / ~15 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 2136 / ~2 MB

CuteNotes

CuteNotes is a simple text editor based on Qt.

Razor-qt with CuteNotes

Installation

pacman -U cutenotes-1.0-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz (142740 Bytes / 142,7 kB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening CuteNotes via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ CuteNotes 0.9
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3802112 kb
Buffers: 9988 kb
Cached: 82472 kb
Rootfs: 937596 / 916M
RAM used at startup: 8432 / ~8 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 1036 / ~1 MB

FocusWriter

FocusWriter is a full-screen, non-disctracting text editor based on Qt. It offers basic support for formats like RTF and ODT, too.

Razor-qt with FocusWriter

Installation

pacman -U focuswriter-1.4.1-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz (721800 Bytes / 721,8 kB)
(other packages downloaded as dependencies: 1720320 Bytes / 1,7 MB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening FocusWriter via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ FocusWriter 1.4.1
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3784348 kb
Buffers: 10472 kb
Cached: 89492 kb
Rootfs: 946180 / 925M
RAM used at startup: 26196 / ~26 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 9620 / ~9 MB

JuffEd

JuffEd is a tabbed editor with syntax highlighting based on Qt.

Razor-qt with JuffEd

Installation

pacman -s juffed (972800 Bytes / 972,8 kB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening JuffEd via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ JuffEd 0.8.1
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3801856 kb
Buffers: 10272 kb
Cached: 88012 kb
Rootfs: 943344 / 922M
RAM used at startup: 8688 / ~8 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 6784 / ~7 MB

KoalaWriter

The KoalaWriter is a non-distracting writer based on Qt. It offers beautiful backgrounds and can even play relaxing music so that you can completely stick to what’s actually important: Your text! It’s a bit heavy-weight, though.

Razor-qt with KoalaWriter

Installation

pacman -koalawriter-1.0-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz (16714076 Bytes / 16,7 MB)
(other packages downloaded as dependencies: 60160000 Bytes / 60,2 MB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening KoalaWriter via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ KoalaWriter 1.0
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3774164 kb
Buffers: 11544 kb
Cached: 100784 kb
Rootfs: 1308516 / 1.3G
RAM used at startup: 36380 / ~36 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 371956 / ~363 MB

kWrite

kWrite is the default text editor of KDE. It’s quite a bit on the heavy side.

Razor-qt with kWrite

Installation

pacman -S kdebase-kwrite (126095360 Bytes / 126,1 MB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening kWrite via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ kWrite 4.10
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3745412 kb
Buffers: 17548 kb
Cached: 108860 kb
Rootfs: 1532732 / 1.5G
RAM used at startup: 65132 / ~64 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 596172 / ~582 MB

Marave

Marave is a non-distracting writer based on Qt. It’s meant to let the user focus on the text rather than the application.

Razor-qt with Marave

Installation

pacman -U marave-0.7-6-any.pkg.tar.xz (1011384 Bytes / 1,0 MB)
(other packages downloaded as dependencies: 23367680 Bytes / 23,4 MB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening Marave via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ Marave 0.7
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3730568 kb
Buffers: 11232 kb
Cached: 121844 kb
Rootfs: 1093932 / 1.1G
RAM used at startup: 79976 / ~78 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 157372 / ~154 MB

Minerva

Minerva is a tiny tabbed text editor based on Qt.

Razor-qt with Minerva

Installation

pacman -U minerva-git-20130220-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz (319276 Bytes / 319,3 kB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening Minerva via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ Minerva GIT20130220
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3806888 kb
Buffers: 9988 kb
Cached: 81580 kb
Rootfs: 942040 / 920M
RAM used at startup: 3656 / ~4 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 5480 / ~5 MB

Tea Editor

The Tea Editor is an advanced editor based on Qt. It offers a lot of features and is still both small in size and frugal in terms of ram usage.

Razor-qt with Tea Editor

Installation

pacman -S tea (1239040 Bytes / 1,2 MB)

Statistics

Memory usage after starting up Razor-qt and opening Tea via the menu (with a second login on tty2) and used disk space after removing pacman cache. Here are the values I got with cat /proc/meminfo and df respectively df -h:

Arch Linux Razor-qt+ Tea editor 34.0.1
MemTotal: 4052828 kb
MemFree: 3804856 kb
Buffers: 10172 kb
Cached: 84644 kb
Rootfs: 942756 / 921M
RAM used at startup: 5688 / ~6 MB
Disk space (less razor system): 6196 / ~6 MB

What’s next?

My next post will provide tables which will make it easier to compare the important values of the programs tested here.

Don’t worry if it takes me a while to publish it – I’m moving houses so time is an even more scarce resource than usually and I might be left without a working internet connection for a while.

Qt-based applications #2: File managers (2/2)

In the last blog entry I tested 8 Qt-based file managers (those which I got to run on Arch Linux). Since that’s quite a bit of stuff, I’d like to present a nice table in this post for easier comparison.

Overall ranking

Here’s the table with the overall results. The file managers were compared in terms of 1. memory consumption (most important for me and thus weighted *3), 2. disk space used (weighted *2) and 3. size of packages to download:

Rank File manager Version
01 Dfilebrowser 1.1
02 ScOpe GIT20130121
03 QtFM 5.1
04 Dino 0.5
05 NewBreeze 1.1.1
06 Andromeda 0.2.1
07 Hamsi Manager 1.1
08 Dolphin 4.9.5

RAM usage

Here’s the table comparing memory use:

<250 MB 251 – 275 MB 276 – 300 MB > 300 MB
Rank File manager Version
01 Dfilebrowser 1.1 230 MB
02 ScOpe GIT20130121 233 MB
03 QtFM 5.1 236 MB
04 Dino 0.5 240 MB
05 NewBreeze 1.1.1 252 MB
06 Andromeda 0.2.1 260 MB
07 Hamsi Manager 1.1 305 MB
08 Dolphin 4.9.5 306 MB

Drive space needed

Here’s the drive space table:

<50 MB 50 – 100 MB 101 – 300 MB > 300 MB
Rank File Manager Version Disk space used
01 Dfilebrowser 1.1 +2 MB
02 Dino 0.5 +3 MB
02 QtFM 5.1 +3 MB
02 ScOpe GIT20130121 +3 MB
03 Andromeda 0.2.1 +64 MB
04 NewBreeze 1.1.1 +74 MB
05 Hamsi Manager 1.1 +295 MB
06 Dolphin 4.9.5 +598 MB

Download size

And the download size table:

<5 MB 6 – 25 MB 26 – 50 MB >50 MB
Rank File Manager Version size
01 Dfilebrowser 1.1 +70 KB
02 QtFM 5.1 +200 KB
03 ScOpe GIT20130121 +243 KB
04 Dino 0.5 +256 KB
05 NewBreeze 1.1.1 +528 KB
06 Andromeda 0.2.1 +13 MB
07 Hamsi Manager 1.1 +51 MB
08 Dolphin 4.9.5 +109 MB

Conclusion

Not too many surprises here. There are some light-weight file managers and a few which offer more features but are also much more heavy weight. Especially in terms of drive space needed and download size the light-weight ones are rather close to each other. Because of that the RAM comparison came out to be identical to the overall rating. Dfilebrowser is the clear winner in our comparison – it scored the first rank in all three categories. ScOpe and QtFM are doing very well, too. Hamsi Manager is a rather ressource heavy file manager and it’s not surprising either that KDE’s Dolphin is the most heavy of the tested applications.

What’s next?

The next entry will take a look at the Qt-based text editors (of which there’s also quite some around).