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

The last blog entry was about a test of 9 Qt-based text editors (those which I could get to run on Arch Linux). And since the comparison of so many programs and values is not really an easy thing, here’s a second post providing some tables which show the programs sorted not by name but by values.

Overall ranking

Here’s the table with the overall results. The text editors 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 Text editor Version
01 Minerva GIT20130220
02 CuteNotes 0.9
03 TEA editor 34.0.1
04 Catlooking Writer 1.0
05 JuffEd 0.8.1
06 FocusWriter 1.4.1
07 KoalaWriter 1.0
08 Marave 0.7
09 kWrite 4.10

RAM usage

Here’s the table comparing memory use:

<10 MB 10 – 25 MB 26 – 50 MB > 50 MB
Rank Text editor Version
01 Minerva GIT20130220 4 MB
02 TEA editor 34.0.1 6 MB
03 Cutenotes 0.9 8 MB
03 JuffEd 0.8.1 8 MB
04 Catlooking Writer 1.0 15 MB
05 FocusWriter 1.4.1 26 MB
06 KoalaWriter 1.0 36 MB
07 kWrite 4.10 64 MB
08 Marave 0.7 78 MB

Drive space needed

Here’s the drive space table:

<20 MB 20 – 100 MB 101 – 200 MB > 200 MB
Rank Text editor Version Disk space used
01 Cutenotes 0.9 +1 MB
02 Catlooking Writer 1.0 +2 MB
03 Minerva GIT20130220 +5 MB
04 TEA editor 34.0.1 +6 MB
05 JuffEd 0.8.1 +7 MB
06 FocusWriter 1.4.1 +9 MB
07 Marave 0.7 +154 MB
08 KoalaWriter 1.0 +363 MB
09 kWrite 4.10 +582 MB

Download size

And the download size table:

<1 MB 1 – 10 MB 11 – 50 MB >50 MB
Rank Text editor Version size
01 CuteNotes 0.9 +143 KB
02 Minerva GIT20130220 +319 KB
03 JuffEd 0.8.1 +973 KB
04 Catlooking Writer 1.0 +1.2 MB
04 TEA editor 34.0.1 +1.2 MB
05 FocusWriter 1.4.1 +2,4 MB
06 Marave 0.7 +24 MB
07 KoalaWriter 1.0 +77 MB
08 kWrite 4.10 +126 MB

Conclusion

When it comes to Qt-based text editors, we can see huge differences between them. With Minerva there’s an editor that really deserves the MIN in its name: It does good in all aspects and is the winner in this test. Rank 4 for the Catlooking Writer shows that even those non-distracting writers don’t necessarily have to be extremely resource-hungry. And well, no surprise: kWrite scores the last rank since it depends on the super-heavy kdelibs.

What’s next?

Next I’d like to pick up the DDD again and create a new version. Then I’ll examine the basic GTK+ applications.

This post was written on 02/27 and automatically published. If I didn’t remove that line that means that I still don’t have a working internet connection.

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