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).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s