3 ms·

How does Quicksilver compare to Alfredapp or other launchers? I've stayed away from it because of tales of crashes and poor performance.

• mchanson 15y ago
  It went through a bad patch a few years ago. For more than a year now it has been rock solid for me.
• dailyrorschach 15y ago
  It seems to me that the value in Quicksilver is the advanced operators you can do - for me I only ever used it for launching/file searching and Alfred fills the hole nicely - I don't intend to switch back.
• alwillis 15y ago
  Quicksilver is pretty much what every other launcher on the Mac has been based on, but for free. Alfred is a nice product and basic launching functionality is free, but most of the advanced features that are free in Quicksilver cost £12 (about $19) to add. I've been running the previous version of Quicksilver on Snow Leopard and Lion, and it's been very solid; the new version should be even better.
  • jeremyswank 15y ago
    agreed; i've been runing quicksilver non-stop since before the developer passed the project on to others. for a time, it was sluggish and caused some problems. but i have no complaints to speak of about the last couple iterations. i switched to quicksilver from launchbar, in spite of the fact that i'd paid good money for launchbar. it's not so much that something was wrong with launchbar; it's only that quicksilver was noticeably better in many respects (flexibility, esthetics, flow), imho.
• 5teev 15y ago
  I loved QuickSilver until I traced a system-wide drag-and-drop problem back to it and regretfully uninstalled it in favor of LaunchBar (which is not free). This was around the time the original developer announced he was basically ceasing work on it. I'm glad development has resumed for QuickSilver, but I'll wait and see before giving up the reliably updated LaunchBar.