File Manager alternatives

[Agent007]

Hi all,

I find Konqueror and Nautilus too heavy on the 600MHZ Athlon system. Are there any other better alternatives u guys use?

Apart from MC..

thanks,
007

[psyjax]

Ummmm.... 600Mhz is too little for them?

Wow, OSX on a g4 400Mhz runs great.... is Gnome and KDE that much of resource hogs? Just wondring.

My only experience with them are on very decked out systems.

[slave]

Maybe the guy has a crappy video card, or 64 megs of RAM.

I use red hat linux 8 on an athlon 700 and it runs *almost* as fast as my athlon XP 2100+ machine.  An athlon 700 is crap, I mean, it's probably slower than a 400 mhz G4.

[Calum]

i too am currently looking for the perfect file manager.
i am currently using DFM with XFce, which you can see here, somebody said it was like the OS/2 file manager but i wouldn't know. also i have been using ROX Filer which looks nicer but isn't as good as DFM. Chuck's page has some interesting file managers, but most of them are commander clones except the ones already mentioned. here's a list of likely looking utilities from ibiblio, i saw a much longer list last night when i was downloading some likely candidates for 'best' file manager (only one i got to work was fileshell, which i don't like yet) and if i find that list again, i'll post it here.

in my opinion distros should provide a few alternative file managers and integrate them into Enlightenment, XFce, IceWM, whatever the nonKDE/GNOME choices for desktop are on that system (hmmph, only windowmaker on redhat...)
depending on what system you are using, you might already have xfm installed. it's a bit like dfm, but a lot worse. also, i tried gentoo for a while which is a really nice file manager, but is still a norton commander clone (actually it's a clone of an old amiga file manager, but it's like the other commanders).

and i have a celery 700 which is butt-slow, and konqueror runs fine on it, as does all of kde 3.1 with all the eye candy. however since i dual boot between slack 9 and peanut linux (which has no GNOME or KDE) i can see the merit of not having a shitload of clutter on your drive simply in order to run konqueror. i was looking into installing konqueror in peanut linux, but i realised it would be necessary really to install the whole KDE/Qt package, which would break the record for a stupid diskspace hog of a file manager (especially since dfm takes up about 600k or something).

I did actually start a similar thread at http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001307 so let me know if you find a file manager you like.
edit: here we go! here's that longer list on ibiblio that i mentioned.

[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: crusader for peace & freedom ]

[SAJChurchey]

Try going w/ an earlier distro that uses KDE 2 or 3.0.  If that doesn't work you can always get familiar w/ the command line and run Window Maker and then use konqueror or nautilus. Window Maker runs a bit faster.

[Pantso]

Well, I've always been a Konqueror fan, since version 1.0 of KDE, when it was buggy as hell.     I've never thought about changing it with anything else, eventhough I also like Nautilus, especially in GNOME 2. As for the speed or lack thereof, it is propably due to a cheap graphics card or adapter.