Debian Planet

Welcome to Debian Planet


Apt-get into it.
Main Menu

  • Home

  • Topics

  • Web Links

  • Your Account

  • Submit News

  • Stats

  • Top 10

  • Debian

    These are important Debian sites one should not be without!

  • Official Debian site

  • Package search

  • Mailing list archives

  • Bug reports

  • Debian on CD

  • Unofficial woody CD ISOs

  • Unofficial APT sources

  • Developers' Corner

    Other great Debian news sources:

  • Debian Weekly News

  • Kernel Cousin Debian

    (Debian mailing lists digested)
  • Community Groups

    Need help? You're not alone on this planet.

  • debianHELP

    (User support site)

  • Debian International

  • DebianWorld




  • EsDebian


  • Debian-BR


  • DebianUsers


  • IRC

    The place to get help on a Debian problem (after reading docs) or to just chat and chill is #debian on

    Many of the Debian Planet staff live there so pop by and say hello.

    Wanna write?

    Got that latest or greatest scoop? Perhaps you have some important news for the Debian community? Submit a news item!

    Or perhaps you've written a rather ground breaking insight into some aspect of Debian and you feel compelled to share it with others? Knock up a longer editorial article and send it to the editors.


    DP is sponsored by and CheepLinux.

    Debian Planet runs on hardware donated by Xinit systems and is using's bandwidth.

    Who's Online

    There are currently, 42 guest(s) and 7 member(s) that are online.

    You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here.

    To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow?
    Contributed by fkoclas on Monday, November 12 @ 03:28:33 GMT

    As soon as Nautilus got out I was excited about its features and looks, but when I tried it, I was very dissapointed. While it looked just as good as expected, it was unacceptably slow, on a 500mhz celeron.

    alp: Although I've never really been on the file manager scene, I'm impressed by Konqueror: it's fast and you can do nifty things like dragging a track off an audio CD to an FTP site to have it encoded to Ogg Vorbis and uploaded directly. It runs fine in GNOME or whatever your desktop du jour happens to be, too. Read on for the submitter's story.

    So I decided to let it mature a little, hoping things would improve. In between, this computer has been upgraded with a Thunderbird 1.2 ghz. To my surprise, Nautilus 1.0.6 is still too slow for regular use. While it sure is a VERY little faster than before, there not much improvement here, and this could be related only to the fact that its running on faster hardware. Video card is a Matrox G400 Max. (if that could help??)

    Is there any way to get Nautilus browse trough files or are we better off sticking with GMC for now?

    Related Links

  • Eazel
  • More about Eazel
  • News by alp

    Most read story about Eazel:
    To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow?

    Last news about Eazel:

    Printer Friendly Page  Send this Story to a Friend
  • "To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow?" | Login/Create Account | 63 comments

    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by CaptainRotundo on Monday, November 12 @ 04:12:35 GMT
    (User Info)

    I run a Dell Inspiron PII 266 with 196 MB of RAM and I love nautilus. It runs perfectly fine for me. prior to 1.0.5 it would freeze up on a network drive directory with too many files, but now it is totally fine. I can't understand everyones complaints about speed at ALL. The first window I open is always a little slow, and it doesn't load HTML, info, or man pages as fast as I would like, but since I use it primarily for file browsing etc it runs fine for me.

    Can someone please explain what features are to slow for them? Even on my modest box the audio previews work fine. I really just don't understand the fuss. kudos to the nautilus team as far as I'm concerned.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 04:15:12 GMT

    I've found the same as you, fkoclas, very slow.

    Intel 733mhz 384mbram matrox g450 debian sid.

    Also, Whenever I try to manage my digital photography collection, it crashes within 5 minutes. I just switched yesterday to konq and I like it a fair bit better... half as buggy (from my experience) and much faster.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 2, Informative)
    by kennric on Monday, November 12 @ 05:08:37 GMT
    (User Info)

    Of course, one should always pick the best tool for the job - for just move/copy/browse file functions, I still like old fashioned mc in a terminal. The reason I tried nautilus, and konqueror, is the one application where icons really help - image collections. I have a few incoming photo directories that can grow to thousands of images, and to sort them out I have always used xv's Visual Schnauser function. This lets me sort images by thumbnail quickly and easily - but it doesn't have a tree view, which helps a lot with drag-and-drop sorting.

    So I went testing with nautilus, xv and konqueror. I used my current new images folder, with 1,696 images. I casually measured the times between opening the folder (or in xv's case, beginning the update thumbnails operation) and having a full view of thumbnails of all the images in the directory. I removed all previously cached thumbnails and did the tests on an empty enlightenment desktop - I have a k6-3 500 with 128 MB RAM.

    xv: 4 minutes, 45 seconds

    nautilus: 27 minutes!!

    konqueror: 14 minutes, 40 seconds

    Nautilus is pretty, it has a few nice features that I like - adjustable icon sizing and two pane tree/icone view. Konqueror is snappier, quicker, but if is have the two-pane view with a tree on one side and icons on the other, I can't find it. Also the layout and icon size are hard to adjust.

    Xv, venerable old workhorse, is fast - it is an image viewer being pressed into a file managers task, but it works beautifully, even if I have to open a second window to drag files into for complex sorting.

    So to answer one question - for my admittedly narrow tasks, nautilus is way too slow to even consider, despite its features - it would have to come down to less than twice the time of xv to even be useable - but I don't think konqueror has the features that would make it worth a switch even at the same speed.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 08:09:07 GMT

    Nautilus is known slow on NFS mounted home directories.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 09:57:08 GMT

    Bear in mind that there are library dependencies to think about. If your desktop runs KDE (for example), you have most of the KDE libraries in memory already; Nautilus loads GNOME libraries. This can cause memory pressure and excessive swapping.

    If you run GNOME OTOH, it's probably time to file a bug report on Nautilus.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by kyrre on Monday, November 12 @ 17:27:30 GMT
    (User Info)

    racquel:~# memstat |grep nau

    43580k: PID 925 (/usr/bin/nautilus)

    43580k: PID 936 (/usr/bin/nautilus)

    43580k: PID 937 (/usr/bin/nautilus)

    43580k: PID 938 (/usr/bin/nautilus)

    1504k: PID 940 (/usr/bin/nautilus-throbber)

    2840k: PID 948 (/usr/bin/nautilus-history-view)

    9708k: PID 950 (/usr/bin/nautilus-news)

    2368k: PID 952 (/usr/bin/nautilus-notes)

    43580k: PID 953 (/usr/bin/nautilus)

    9708k: PID 1052 (/usr/bin/nautilus-news)

    9708k: PID 1053 (/usr/bin/nautilus-news)

    9708k: PID 1054 (/usr/bin/nautilus-news)

    9708k: PID 1370 (/usr/bin/nautilus-news)

    544k: /usr/bin/nautilus 925 936 937 938 953

    12k: /usr/bin/nautilus-history-view 948

    36k: /usr/bin/nautilus-news 950 1052 1053 1054 1370

    12k: /usr/bin/nautilus-notes 952

    16k: /usr/bin/nautilus-throbber 940

    8k: /usr/lib/ 925 936 937 938 953

    664k: /usr/lib/ 925 936 937 938 940 946 948 ...

    60k: /usr/lib/ 925 936 937 938 953

    76k: /usr/lib/ 925 936 937 938 940 946 948 950 952 ...


    [ Reply ]

    I think it's a VM issue (Score: 2, Informative)
    by GreatJehovah on Monday, November 12 @ 19:45:59 GMT
    (User Info)

    When I upgraded to kernel 2.4.13, Nautilus became dramatically faster.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 3, Interesting)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 22:56:36 GMT

    I really like Nautilus. It have many features I've never seen in a filemanager before, and I like most of them. The ability to put emblems on files and sort directories after emblems makes my mp3 collection much easier to browse. The news-tab have made my surfing much more efficient, because now I don't need to visit 8 different pages five times a day. just to see if there's any news.

    I have tested konqueror and didn't like it. I think Nautilus is inventing, with new aproaches to different problems. Konqueror looked and felt just like a uglier clone of windows explorer (sorry konq-hackers)

    However, I must say speed is an issue. Nautilus 1.0.6 in sid is quite slow. I have a computer running woody and ximian-gnome, and Nautilus there is very snappy. Probably as fast as konqueror.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 @ 00:33:07 GMT

    Well, while no one will disagree that nautilus could be faster, I disagree that it is unusable. I use it every day, and really have no problem, as long as it is not used in the MacOS finder mode (open each dir in a new window.) Nautilus is great in my oppinion. In addition, it will probably get a speed boost in GNOME2 as it sheds it freetype requirements and can use native font AA.

    Anyway, until then, thanks nautilus hackers!

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by CaptainRotundo on Tuesday, November 13 @ 18:27:08 GMT
    (User Info)

    Ok every one has been posting numbers, CPU usage jumping to 30% or whatever, memory usage, etc. all this nonsence means nothing unless it changes usability, now everyone also says nautilus makes their machine too slow to use. And you all have much better systems than I. so can someone explain why I dont have the crazy delays that everyone mentions ? I posted what I ran and its no where near some of your systems but I dont have delays. Nautilus takes about 8-12 seconds on initial load.. thats it, after that opening windows and files and browsing has delays towards one whole second for me.

    I am beginning to think that this is turning into some wierd religious nonsence along the lines of vi/emacs.

    Or maybe I'm the only person that can wait an entire second for a decent appliction to do something.

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 @ 00:34:18 GMT

    Yea nautilus is quite pretty but quite slow at the same time...

    However, I don't mind much as I use the famous xterm as a file manager =)

    [ Reply ]

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, November 16 @ 00:58:58 GMT

    i used to always bat back and forth between GMC & Nautilus. i was a big GNOME guy. eventually i just got so tired of how graphical and memory-leaky it's become. this is Debian, not MacOS X!!! 🙂 anyways, i eventually settled on a little-known Motif FM called Xplore (based on XFM and others). it does everything i need and it looks nice and it's fast. so, no more of the crashes from Nautilus or the weird search boxes and "take-over-desktop" stuff from GMC. i've settled on MWM, RXVT and Xplore.

    [ Reply ]

    • Try ROX-Filer by Anonymous on Friday, November 16 @ 10:17:45 GMT

    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Sunday, November 18 @ 15:49:45 GMT

    I got a little bit confused reading this Thread. Why is everybody sucking around with such monster shells (Nautilus, Konqueror, gmc), if you can use such easy and featureful shells like bash or ksh? It would solve the whole problem.

    [ Reply ]

    Get VFS running... (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 @ 00:01:38 GMT

    can someone explain me, how i get vfs running in sid? i installed the vfs-package, but none of the apps seems to make use of it...?

    [ Reply ]

    Based on: PHP-Nuke

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2000 by Debian Planet

    You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php.