Debian Planet










Welcome to Debian Planet

Search

All your woody are (not quite, but very very very soon) belong to us.
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

  • DebianForum.de

    (Deutsch)

  • EsDebian

    (espaรฑol)

  • DebianWorld

    (franรงais)

  • MaximumDebian

    (Italiano)

  • DebianUsers

    (Korean)

  • Debian-BR

    (Portuguรชs)

  • IRC

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

    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.

    Sponsorship

    DP is sponsored by Xinit Systems and kieser.net.

    Domains paid for and hosted by uklinux.net.

    Buy your Debian merchandise at DebianShop.com.

    Who's Online

    There are currently, 53 guest(s) and 1 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

    Eazel
    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
    Threshold


    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) http://www.dweasel.com/

    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 @ 04:19:43 GMT

    I have a small gnumeric spreadsheet sitting on my desktop. In kde, it comes up in less than 2 seconds. In nautilus (for me), it takes 10-20 seconds. Perhaps one explanation could be that because I don't use nautilus/konq often, that it all swaps out (for nautilus) but not konq?

    pIII 733mhx 384mb ram, debian sid.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by hallstevenson on Monday, November 12 @ 04:33:07 GMT
    (User Info)

    I kinda grew tired of gmc. I ran efm for quite a while when it was under heavy development with Enlightenment and really liked it. Since efm is pretty much done for the time being, I decided to give Nautilus a shot...

    It does look great but it's sloooow. I thought, "Man, when I upgrade my box to an Athlon 1.4ghz with 256+ RAM, this would be GREAT !!". Nonetheless, it's since been removed from my too-slow AMD K6-450/128mb RAM machine... I do have a Matrox G400/16ms video card...

    It looks like an 'editor' here mentioned dragging and dropping files related to mp3s/wavs/etc. The debian package for Nautilus does depend on libcdparanoia0 (>= 3a9.8-1). Why ?? I don't know...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 21:56:00 GMT

    Damn, Hall, you do get around. I've seen you a lot at DSLReports and also at Slashdot...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by hallstevenson on Tuesday, November 13 @ 02:30:58 GMT
    (User Info)

    Uhhh, well, thank you. I do post a lot at DSL Reports. Who are you there ??

    Haven't posted much at slashdot though... I often wonder why it's still my 'home' page with the amount of *noise* it has nowadays.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 23:50:22 GMT

    nautilus ?

    ok too slow for my 350Mhz machine. i switched to

    ROX. http://rox.sourceforge.net/

    very nice sw

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 @ 01:56:14 GMT

    my main complaint with nautilus is that it is painfully slow and resource hungry when used in a multi-monitor type setup. On my dual monitor setup (with xinerama enabled, running at 2560x2048 (1280x1024 on each head)), Dual PIII-450's, 512MB RAM, 2,.4.12-ac3 + pre-emptive kernel patches, etc, it takes forever to open the desktop window, and an eternity to render the background. Opening any other file browser window after this is almost just as painful.Nautilus is far, far away from being anywhere close to acceptible for everyday use...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by CaptainRotundo on Tuesday, November 13 @ 18:20:54 GMT
    (User Info) http://www.dweasel.com/

    two 1280x1024 monitors does not equal 2560x2048 ๐Ÿ™‚

    [ 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: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 @ 13:51:39 GMT

    Try Krusader. What I was looking for (ex Amiga user here ๐Ÿ˜‰

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, November 17 @ 15:43:31 GMT

    there is a tool for each task.

    nautilus and other filemanagers are good for general tasks and so. But when you go proffesional you need something more specific: give gthumb or gqview a try for photographs.

    Yours, nestordi

    [ Reply ]


    and excessive memory usage (Score: -1, Troll)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 04:39:56 GMT

    seems like any high profile desktop app (mozilla, nautilus, evolution) uses excessive amounts of memory.

    Why any app would need more than 20MB beats me.. they must just allocate massive amounts of memory for stupid things.. really bad programming in my opinion.

    run mozilla and nautilus and have a contest to see which gets to 1/2 your physical memory first.

    both of these apps have used over 100MB of memory for me... totally unaceptable... they should become windows programers

    [ Reply ]


    Re: and excessive memory usage (Score: 0, Troll)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 04:49:26 GMT

    Actually i think some of them where. One time when i was on irc.mozilla.org trying to find a solution to some annoying bug or another a few milestones back, well first i am ignored totally by the developers. So instead i end up watching a conversation unfold something like this. "I was gonna get my mcse and just do networking, but luckily i got hired by aol" "Ya me too, i wasn't really sure i liked programming but since aol hired me so fast after graduation i decided to just go with it.". After that i don't really wonder why release after release of mozilla just shuffles bugs around and never really goes anywhere. Most of the people on the project are just crummy cheap wage programmers hired by aol and dumped on the project. I know it's a high offense to ever say a discouraging word about a open source coder, but i know what i read.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: and excessive memory usage (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 19:18:50 GMT

    So you think that's it, huh? You heard two developers talking and now you know everything about the Mozilla developers?

    Get A Clue.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: and excessive memory usage (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 20:11:46 GMT

    So you are trying to claim the majority of mozilla developers are not just AOL employees?

    If not then what's their excuse for that crap?

    [ Reply ]


    Re: and excessive memory usage (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 22:28:39 GMT

    don't feed the trolls.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: and excessive memory usage (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 22:57:59 GMT

    The sad part is...that wasn't a troll.

    That really happened.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: and excessive memory usage (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, November 16 @ 12:52:02 GMT

    Oh let me guess, you're one of these people that elevates open source coders to god status just becuase they gave away some shitty ass spaghetti code. If you are in search of a father figure or a positive male role model in your life, mozilla developers are not a good choice. See the only coders that are supposed to have enjoy a celebrity status are the GOOD coders. Not the people crapping out some shitty buggy bloatware. Open source or not, if it sucks, then it sucks.If mozilla was closed source you would think it was utter shit. So instead you have access to the utter shit code. this makes it better how? And if you say so you can fix it, well, it's been years now and nobody fixed is so...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: and excessive memory usage (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 04:55:28 GMT

    both are multithreaded

    you don't add up the memory from each one, just between the two. You also have to realize that dynamic memory and shared resources are counted each time.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: and excessive memory usage (Score: 1)
    by ashridah on Monday, November 12 @ 12:23:56 GMT
    (User Info)

    just which value were we reading this out of anyway?

    hope it wasn't the SIZE variable, since that's the size of the virtual memory area, not an indication of how many pages are actively in use by the process. get memstat (apt-get install memstat) and look much closer at how much memory is going where. and don't be surprised if a lot of it comes from the libraries loaded, and the rest is the pretty art (*shudder*) )

    i usually use gmc if i'm doing something i specifically want a gui file manager for. faster, although needs a kick in the pants configurability wise. i think they should just grab gmc and make a component out of it or something, much neater than nautilus and it's "lets embed mozilla" approach

    that said, you so won't see nautilus on my desktop. i find gnome perfectly usable without it, and since i can type far faster than most people can use a mouse, i'll stick to that (add tab completion, and it's even quicker)

    as for previewing.... well. i already know what's in all my mp3's ๐Ÿ™‚

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: -1, Troll)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 04:59:16 GMT

    I still just open an Eterm and do it with a commandline. ls -lh with bash coloring gives me all the info i need. Would i like a snazy sexy file manager? sure. Am i gonna put up with any bloat? nope. Explorer in XP looks really sexy and has all kinds of nice little features. If you can't get it at least as fast as that i don't wanna use it. Sure explorer kinda cheats, but still there is no reason for the mega bloat of these projects. Come on this is open source, it's supposed to be better, what's up with the bloat fellas?

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 @ 19:36:11 GMT

    And this is modded troll becuase?

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, November 16 @ 12:34:58 GMT

    Becuase it admits Windows has a superior file manager and browser. ssshhhhhh don't tell anybody.

    [ 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: 1)
    by kennric on Monday, November 12 @ 05:46:07 GMT
    (User Info)

    Sorry, my bad, Konqueror does indeed have the tree view and icon size settings I desire, I just didn't play enough (having decided graphical filemanagers are just plain too slow in any case). Sorry to have misrepresented Konqueror, which I do rather like.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 13:26:53 GMT

    I don't use Nautilus much, but one of the recent changelogs had an entry to the effect of "viewing a directory no longer requires exponential time". You may want to try again (although if you have a setup you're happy with, it may not be worth the trouble)

    Daniel

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by Veran on Monday, November 12 @ 18:36:25 GMT
    (User Info) http://www.morgandelra.com

    I have to agree with you, when it comes to file management, mc in a terminal beats ANY graphical file manager I have ever seen for X, Windows, MacOS.

    As for image preview... honestly for my porn I just use gqview, handles all my jpg's just fine, and it can use all of Xv's thumbnails. Plus it has a tree view which is handy for sorting.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 23:29:33 GMT

    actually, I think that konqueror has MORE features than nautilus. ever tried some of the io-slaves? i love man:// and help://, and audio://.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 @ 17:17:57 GMT

    I don't know what audio:// do, but Nautilus can view manpages and helppages, and can play mp3s (if that's what audio:// is for).


    Konqueror miss some of the features I use most in Nautilus. Emblems, the ability to change icons, the ability to resize icons, the scripts and the news-tab.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, November 16 @ 13:50:20 GMT

    I'm not sure about audio:// but audiocd:// can be used to play music cd's.

    It also creates virtual directories for the mp3 and ogg vorbis versions of the tracks on an audio cd and as soon as you try to access them (e.g. by dragging and dropping to another location) it will rip and compress the on the fly.

    It's nice, but I still prefer using grip to rip track myself.

    [ 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: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 12:50:39 GMT

    That only affects the time it takes to start Nautilus. It is still far to slow to even list files in a directory! If you use custom icons, or configure it so that the icon is a preview of the file you may as well count on it being two or three times slower. I thought it was just my moderately old hardware (Pentium II @ 350MHz) but I feel even more disappointed to find out it is because Nautilus is so slow.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, November 12 @ 15:13:19 GMT

    i used gnome for a long time (primary because i wanted a cool environment to develop applications for), but got very dissapointed with it.

    some months ago i switched to kde and i really love it (especially with the liquid style from mosfet), qt is _much_ nicer to program with than gtk.

    i haven't tried gnustep yet as a development platform, but currently my favourite is qt/kde.

    [ 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/libnautilus-adapter.so.0.0.0 925 936 937 938 953

    664k: /usr/lib/libnautilus-private.so.0.0.0 925 936 937 938 940 946 948 ...

    60k: /usr/lib/libnautilus-tree-view.so.0.0.0 925 936 937 938 953

    76k: /usr/lib/libnautilus.so.0.0.0 925 936 937 938 940 946 948 950 952 ...

    racquel:~#

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by fkoclas on Monday, November 12 @ 20:42:35 GMT
    (User Info)

    wow!! hehe

    Maybe we should all get 1.5 gigs of ram.... welp at least RAM is cheap these days, espicially SDRAM

    maybe they should change Nautilus name to RAMEATus ๐Ÿ˜‰

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, November 16 @ 11:32:23 GMT

    What are you trying to proove here? I hope you are aware that threads show up as processes under Linux. Thus all those processes with the same amount of RAM are actually threads of the same process sharing memory.

    [ 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: I think it's a VM issue (Score: 1)
    by fkoclas on Monday, November 12 @ 20:38:04 GMT
    (User Info)

    Im running on Kernel 2.4.13 right now, all optimized for my hardware and I find Nautilus' 3 to 5 seconds delay when browsing local files too much...

    Even Mac OS 10.1 on an unsupported machine (7300 200mhz 604e) (slowww) browse trough files faster... there might be 2 seconds waiting there.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: I think it's a VM issue (Score: 1)
    by KLP2 on Tuesday, November 13 @ 12:40:45 GMT
    (User Info)

    I run Nautilus (Ximian-Gnome) on a Woody machine with kernel 2.4.14. I have a PII 450 with 192MB. I found that when I use Nautilus to handle the desktop, the CPU usage jumps to 25-35% from about 1% when using Gnome-Midnight Commander. It makes my machine too slow to use, so I don't think VM is the issue here.

    Nautilus is usable as a standalone file manager, but GMC is much faster. As for viewing pr0^H^H^H images, I prefer Gqview.

    That said, Nautilus looks great, and as soon as it gets optimized, it's gonna kick arse.

    [ 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 Monday, November 12 @ 23:27:46 GMT

    with woody, nautlius, and konq (apt-upgraded a few days ago), i'd say konq is about 2 to 3 times faster than nautlius.. is is even slower in sid? (on an athlon 1.2ghz, 256mb ram)

    I think that nautilus is almost every bit a windows explorer clone as konq is, btw. konq just does web browsing better.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by fkoclas on Tuesday, November 13 @ 00:08:21 GMT
    (User Info)

    Hmmmm.... since I guess I have nothing to do, I made another partition on which I'm currently installing Debian Potato (2.2r4, over DSL) along with Ximian Desktop see how it runs. I hope it runs faster but I honestly don't think so and quite frankly, Potato is getting OLD.. oh well... nothing like dual-booting two different versions of Debian ๐Ÿ™‚ OooOoO perhaps I should make another partition for woody ๐Ÿ˜‰ heeeee Triple Booting Debian hehehe gotta love that =)

    [ Reply ]


    konqie's advantages (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 @ 00:30:41 GMT

    I've never tried Nautilus, but I feel moved to defend the K against Explorer. Konqueror actually does have some innovations and improvements over Win2k Explorer. Here's a sample:

    - Builtin command line. I use my CL as much in win2k as I do in Linux, so it's a real ding against win2k that it doesn't have this feature.

    - Really complex paning scheme. You can add more panes, more views of the data to the same window.

    - Rendering of info pages and man pages. Windows doesn't have info or man pages, but let's be clear: Win2k Explorer can't render them, and Konqueror can. (Hint: #manpage or man://manpage or man://manpage(section) will get you a man page. info://infopage will get you a gnu info page.)

    - Speed, arguably. Konqie "feels" faster than Windows 2000 Explorer on the same hardware. I can't measure this precisely, but some would say how fast it feels is more important than how fast it actually is. Things like giving visual clues while the file manager is working are important.

    - xant

    [ Reply ]


    Re: konqie's advantages++ (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 @ 17:27:09 GMT

    And then there are the "other" innovations..

    My personal fav is the audiocd:/ IOSlave. View your audio cd as if it was a bunch of Ogg/MP3 files, copy them around as if they were normal files..

    Me, I've been messing about in things other than KDE lately, but you can't knock KDE for a lack of innovation or speed, really. Yeah, XFCE/Rox/WMaker is faster, but by the time you add in all that KDE offers I guess you're stuck with something as complex (and therefore less speedy) as KDE.

    But.. KDE and Gnome w/Nautilus aren't even in the same league. I don't care if you're talking Debian/RedHat/ Nautilus is slow, slow, slow.

    If you want a nifty little file manager that is blindingly fast and gives you desktop options, try ROX. I was just introduced to it in the last few days, and I have to say that I'm impressed. VERY fast.

    (But, it's _just_ a file manager.)

    [ 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) http://www.dweasel.com/

    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 Tuesday, November 13 @ 19:37:21 GMT

    Or maybe you have a lot less stuff in your directories.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by fkoclas on Tuesday, November 13 @ 20:24:37 GMT
    (User Info)

    Well, the initial load is quite long (too much, perhaps), and the 3 to 5 seconds delay to open a window that contains about 20 items is a joke.... and I'm not quite sure my 1200mhz computer with 256mb ram is below the minimum requirements ;D I wish I could help them making it faster but I don't have enough time to learn C++, C, Corba, GTK+, Perl, etc.... hehe i wish though

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by KLP2 on Wednesday, November 14 @ 14:40:46 GMT
    (User Info)

    No, it's nothing religious, just saying it the way it is. I'm a Gnome user all the way, and would like nothing better than to praise Nautilus, but until it gets optimized speedwise, I'm sticking to GMC. No way I'm overloading my PC with KDE libs only to run Konqueror. ๐Ÿ™‚

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 @ 21:41:02 GMT

    WTF? Why even use Nautilus? Bash works plenty fast on every machine I have, from my P75 laptop up to my 1.2 G Athlon. I can't really see the point of GUI File Managers.

    [ 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 Thursday, November 15 @ 00:35:20 GMT

    Same here, good ol' xterm running in WindowMaker :o)

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 @ 00:37:20 GMT

    Yeah I used to hate using Console commands at first but after being slowed down by some file managers (includign nautilus for that matter), I decided it was time to learn the dam* console.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 @ 00:38:56 GMT

    Same here.

    And console has that advantage : be anywhere, anytime, and it will always look the same ๐Ÿ˜‰ I mean telnet to your machine or ssh or telnet-ssl or whatever ๐Ÿ˜‰ and you will always feel home >:)

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 @ 00:40:05 GMT

    Console has its advantages.. you can't impress your friends with its look, but you can impress them with your geekness ๐Ÿ˜‰

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 1)
    by fkoclas on Thursday, November 15 @ 00:45:10 GMT
    (User Info)

    heh I admin console is very useful, but I mean.... its not the best tool to preview images, and that sort of thing. Also try to get young kids to use the console hehe ๐Ÿ˜‰

    The result will be either a console hater or a console geek ;D

    [ Reply ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 @ 04:53:25 GMT

    The opposite is true here... my dad wants to know nothing about the console and I spend about 30% of my time in it

    [ 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!!! ๐Ÿ™‚ 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 (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, November 16 @ 10:17:45 GMT

    The pletora of small lightweight file manager out there seems to demonstrate that many peoples (including me ) are unhappy with the current tendence to integrate everithing in the file manager. (OK, many others (most?) are just fine with that. Good for them).


    After a long search, I finally settled on ROX-Filer. It is a nice GTK-based filer which started as a clone of Risc OS filer app, then evolved on its own.


    Fast, nice-looking, feature-full and well keyboard integration (I just love the way the directory text entry interacts with the graphical part of the file manager).


    No official debian packages, yet, but unofficial ones are at http://www.janw.easynet.be/rox/. And there is always the source, at http://rox.sourceforge.net/.

    [ Reply ]


    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 ]


    Re: To Nautilus or not to Nautilus : Ain't Nautilus too slow (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 @ 21:45:03 GMT

    Yeah no kidding! Bash, ash, csh, ksh, whatever is 1000% faster and more productive than anything that involves the use of a mouse.

    [ 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 ยฉ 2000 by Debian Planet

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