4 ms·

I love Quicksilver. How is Alfred better? Workflows also remind me of Apple's own Automator.

• empire29 14y ago
  Quicksilver is probably more powerful, but Alfred (to me) seems much simpler and there's a lower barrier to entry. Where with QS I had to "think" whenever I used it, Alfred's interface, in the parlance of apple, "just works".
  • jamesjporter 14y ago
    Really? Quicksilver has always felt like a natural extension of my brain. Then again I've never tried Alfred, so maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.
• ScotterC 14y ago
  I switched recently and couldn't be happier. The bottom line is I find that Alfred is much faster. Other then that they're roughly equivalent.
• bbgm 14y ago
  I switched cause I found the interface to me much cleaner and easier to work with.
• Groxx 14y ago
  Alfred is simpler, and noticeably faster than a non-fine-tuned Quicksilver in my experience. And the little details are done better - e.g. punch in an equation and it'll show you the results as you enter them, and hit enter to copy the results. Small, but I use it often enough that I would miss it. For anyone with a fine-tuned Quicksilver install, you're basically weighing the more advanced features (e.g. "find file -> open with -> find application" is a favorite of mine) against Alfred's "Power Pack" - it'll cost you $ and probably a bit of speed to switch to Alfred. Ultimately though, a highly customized Quicksilver install has basically no competitors.