3 ms·
Not bad at all, but I still find Google Quick Search Box[1] more complete. Navigating the filesystem directly is what I miss the most in Alfred. EDIT: It also
by redmage 17y ago
Not bad at all, but I still find Google Quick Search Box[1] more complete. Navigating the filesystem directly is what I miss the most in Alfred.
EDIT: It also doesn't seem to have a built-in calculator. :(
[1] http://code.google.com/p/qsb-mac/ http://code.google.com/p/qsb-mac/
- cscotta 17y agoIt's a brand new app with 1 - 1.5 developers; give them a chance ;-) The design is great. It's a bummer that Quicksilver development has ceased. Google QSB is cool, but it's also nice to see a free/ISV competitor pop up with a genuinely capable product.
- redmage 17y agoI didn't mean to be too evil in my comment. I actually like the design and how fast it feels (not that QSB is slow). :) I'll keep tuned for updates. It does seems promising, although it isn't yet complete enough for me (or for people who tend to use Quicksilver as more than just an application launcher). EDIT: I just noticed Alfred uses very little memory (12.5MB after launching an app). http://grab.by/2V19 http://grab.by/2V19
- spooneybarger 17y agoI remember the days when the entire BeOS operating system could run in 4 megs of ram. An application launcher running in 12.5 megs will never count as 'very little memory' to me.
- redmage 17y agoI used to use dmenu in Linux, which used just a few kilobytes of memory, wasn't running all the time in the background and was fast... My point was how little memory Alfred uses when compared the Quicksilver or Google QSB (the latter currently taking up 39MB at the moment). [I just noticed this reply was an example of this: http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/]
- spooneybarger 17y agoI didn't say you were wrong. I said that 12.5 megs will never count as 'very little memory' to me. It is a matter of perspective, not correctness.