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.
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:
Here’s the table comparing memory use:
|<250 MB||251 – 275 MB||276 – 300 MB||> 300 MB|
|07||Hamsi Manager||1.1||305 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|
|05||Hamsi Manager||1.1||+295 MB|
And the download size table:
|<5 MB||6 – 25 MB||26 – 50 MB||>50 MB|
|07||Hamsi Manager||1.1||+51 MB|
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.
The next entry will take a look at the Qt-based text editors (of which there’s also quite some around).