Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on December 20, 2006 04:32 PM
It is also my main reaction... I used Rox-Filer for years, until recently when I switched to Thunar, which is faster in many cases.
I actually did some speed test 2 months ago between Thunar, Konqueror, Nautilus and Rox, and Konqueror is nearly always the fastest (I was creating a directory with thousands of files (text or png), or opening<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/bin or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/lib). Rox was very often among the slowest ones. Nautilus has really improved in the last years speedwise.
But Rox advantage is the very good interface. Very efficient for most actions.
Thunar got mentioned, but not described in the article. It is a little like a Nautilus without the annoying features (e.g. spatial mode). Still rough but very usable (not yet a 1.0 release). As I said, I switched to it recently after years of Rox-Filer.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:What about ROX?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 04:32 PMI actually did some speed test 2 months ago between Thunar, Konqueror, Nautilus and Rox, and Konqueror is nearly always the fastest (I was creating a directory with thousands of files (text or png), or opening<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/bin or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/lib). Rox was very often among the slowest ones. Nautilus has really improved in the last years speedwise.
But Rox advantage is the very good interface. Very efficient for most actions.
Thunar got mentioned, but not described in the article. It is a little like a Nautilus without the annoying features (e.g. spatial mode). Still rough but very usable (not yet a 1.0 release). As I said, I switched to it recently after years of Rox-Filer.
#