I know its late but, kill nautilus!

[Speed_arg]

I know most users here will disagree with me, but IMO nautilus sucks too bad. Its slow as hell even if you disable thumbnails. I remember in a old semprom, 1gb ram DDR and FX 5200 nautilus being soooo slow, unlikely in XP where file manager is pretty fast. IMO speed is a very important factor for any user who comes from Windows. My first impression (before switching to thunar, I don't know another file manager, if you know a better one tell me) was Hell, this is much slower than windows, why the **** should I switch if not only is harder "in the sense that you have to learn new stuff" but its also much slower?

I know there are other distros like Xubuntu and stuff, but the main thing here is Ubuntu, and IMO it gives a really bad impression such a slow file manager.

[alexmurray]

Nautilus is great performance wise for me - can you elaborate in particular on what you think is so slow about it?

[Lord Stig]

I know most users here will disagree with me, but IMO nautilus sucks too bad. Its slow as hell even if you disable thumbnails. I remember in a old semprom, 1gb ram DDR and FX 5200 nautilus being soooo slow, unlikely in XP where file manager is pretty fast. IMO speed is a very important factor for any user who comes from Windows. My first impression (before switching to thunar, I don't know another file manager, if you know a better one tell me) was Hell, this is much slower than windows, why the **** should I switch if not only is harder "in the sense that you have to learn new stuff" but its also much slower?

I know there are other distros like Xubuntu and stuff, but the main thing here is Ubuntu, and IMO it gives a really bad impression such a slow file manager.
PC Man File Manager has tabbed browsing, so I prefer that to Thunar. I almost take it for granted now.

[Speed_arg]

Opening a folder takes sometimes like 1.5 secs!!! Whereas in XP its instant (like 0.1 sec)

[Grenage]

Nautilus is instant on all my machines, even a terribly old laptop. Try not to compare an OS released in 2001 to an OS released in 2009.

[scottuss]

Nautilus isn't the fastest file manager on Earth, but it's certainly worth putting up with slight delays for the perks.

I'm talking about SFTP browsing being intergrated, tabbed browsing, nice neat layout and a whole host of other advantages that I can't seem to find in any other file manager on Linux or Windows (and it SURE as hell beats Finder on the Mac!)

[ViperScull]

Give a try to PcMan File Manager. Fastest i've ever tried

[vade]

Nautilus opens into the home folder in about 0.5 seconds. The home folder is in its fresh post-install state so there's nothing flashy there. No thumbnails or anything. This happens on a pretty fast quad-core desktop rig. I don't really see why this should take 0.5 seconds. Nobody wants to optimize?

[scottuss]

Nautilus opens into the home folder in about 0.5 seconds. The home folder is in its fresh post-install state so there's nothing flashy there. No thumbnails or anything. This happens on a pretty fast quad-core desktop rig. I don't really see why this should take 0.5 seconds. Nobody wants to optimize?

I have a pretty powerful box too, and with Compiz effects it takes slightly longer to do pretty much anything. However, for me, 0.5 seconds is easily justifiable. If you don't like it, use a different file manager. I'd hate for Nautilus to be stripped of functionality just to appease people who complain that it's too slow.

Look mate, this is Linux, you have a choice! Use another file manager, some of us like (and NEED) Nautilus just the way it is.

[MacUntu]

sudo apt-get install gnome-commander. :P

[kansasnoob]

BTW you'd have to convince the Gnome devs, not the Ubuntu devs ;)

It'd never happen though.

[rajeev1204]

Opening a folder takes sometimes like 1.5 secs!!! Whereas in XP its instant (like 0.1 sec)

Confirmed.

In fact, in XP the folders open even before the familiar click sound (when you double click ) has finished playing.But this is for a fresh install of XP.We all know what happens over time and it starts to crawl.

[emarkay]

...If it ain't broke, don't fix it! :)

[cariboo]

XP is a 9 year old operating system, it should not be used as a comparison to any modern operating system be it Windows or Linux.

[kansasnoob]

XP is a 9 year old operating system, it should not be used as a comparison to any modern operating system be it Windows or Linux.

My edit to that statement:

XP is a 9 year old operating system, it should not be used except as a last resort :D

Sorry, I couldn't help myself :)

[hexsel]

To be fair, you should include operations like Delete on large folders, which on XP, EVEN when holding Shift to delete bypassing trash, it takes forever, like several minutes.

[Darkshade]

...I remember in a old semprom, 1gb ram DDR and FX 5200 nautilus being soooo slow, unlikely in XP where file manager is pretty fast...

Huh.. I'm using an old sempron with 1gb ram and nautilus is ok - a bit slower than pcmanfm but still fast enough for everyday use. Anyway, the decision is not up to Ubuntu but Gnome which means nautilus is staying (;

[keypox]

Nautilus is instant on all my machines, even a terribly old laptop. Try not to compare an OS released in 2001 to an OS released in 2009.

Huh are you saying that xp should be faster cause its older? Just in opening folders?

Anyways i love nautilus, its fast and awesome.

[RasterBurn]

hello all, i have a custom built computer (built it 2 years ago, designed to keep up with time for at least another year or so) in that time i have used XP Pro, XP Pro 64bit, Vista Ultimate, Vista Ultimate 64bit, Win 7, and Ubuntu, i am currently running 8.10 64bit cause the desktop didnt load up on 9.04 anyways i have found that nautilus keeps up with the speed of any version of explorer if not faster, my wifes computer on the other hand is currently running Vista Ultimate, and well unfortunately any opperation on it takes a couple of minutes to do

[Speed_arg]

What does it have to do that XP is 9 years old? Functionality is pretty much the same, and its MUCH faster. Anyway, I think linux shouldn't be like "OK, this OS is shittier, so being a bit ****** doesn't matter".

And by the way, take a look at Windows 7 otherwise, which is less than a year old, and its still much faster than nautilus.

[RasterBurn]

well the fact that win XP is 9 years old means it was designed to meet the standards of computers 9 years ago aka: 512mb ram, 1GHz procs that sort of thing so having that said, an up to date computer is going to load the XP explorer fractions of a second, nautilus, correct me if i am wrong, has been updated several times to keep up with the standards of computer hardware, a better comparison would be x86 nautilus compared to x86 vista explorer or x86 win7 explorer and the same for 64bit versions :D and for the record my computer built 2 years ago loads 64bit nautilus just as fast if not faster then both the x86 vista explorer and x86 win7 explorer

[Seventh Reign]

Opening a folder takes sometimes like 1.5 secs!!! Whereas in XP its instant (like 0.1 sec)

I'm sorry, but opening a file in XP takes upwards of 5 seconds on a brand new freshly installed system with 4 gigs of RAM and a dual core processor.

[jpeddicord]

So far all that's in this thread is anecdotal evidence that Nautilus is slow and Explorer is fast and vice-versa. Doesn't sound very convincing...

[rajeev1204]

So far all that's in this thread is anecdotal evidence that Nautilus is slow and Explorer is fast and vice-versa. Doesn't sound very convincing...

Nautilus is slow compared to explorer.

I just came back checking it on my own dual boot system and it is slower to explorer.

And as far as it being 100 year old or 9 year old,it works mighty well and does everything needed for most users even today.

[rajeev1204]

well the fact that win XP is 9 years old means it was designed to meet the standards of computers 9 years ago aka: 512mb ram, 1GHz procs that sort of thing so having that said, an up to date computer is going to load the XP explorer fractions of a second, nautilus, correct me if i am wrong, has been updated several times to keep up with the standards of computer hardware, a better comparison would be x86 nautilus compared to x86 vista explorer or x86 win7 explorer and the same for 64bit versions :D and for the record my computer built 2 years ago loads 64bit nautilus just as fast if not faster then both the x86 vista explorer and x86 win7 explorer

.......

[ronacc]

ok here is a test that would be moderately objective , someone who has both xp and ubuntu on the same machine . create an empty directory and in that directory put , 1 single page txt file 1 multipage txt file , 1 mp3 , 1 jpg . put the same files natively created (or copied off the web by that installations default browser on both XP and Ubuntu . and then after a fresh boot , open and time ,the directory and each of the files . Note both Ubuntu and XP must be natively installed , no virtual boxes .

[VMC]

The OP has at least two topics showing the speed difference or comparison between XP and Linux(Ubuntu).

Usually when I see this, the person isn't long for the Linux world.

You have to ask yourself why you choose Linux after using Windows, and get a clear understanding first.

When I see people comparing the two, shortly thereafter they revert back to Windows. Sad, but once they go back, again they remember why they tried to leave. This hop-scotch plays itself out on numerous forums.

One must remember, Linux IS Not Windows. This happens in all walks of life. Car to car, house to house, girlfriend to..you get the picture.

The best gift one can give oneself is forget the past, including Windows. Your free to help develop something new, and your not locked in to a closed and closely system.

[rajeev1204]

The OP has at least two topics showing the speed difference or comparison between XP and Linux(Ubuntu).

Usually when I see this, the person isn't long for the Linux world.

You have to ask yourself why you choose Linux after using Windows, and get a clear understanding first.

When I see people comparing the two, shortly thereafter they revert back to Windows. Sad, but once they go back, again they remember why they tried to leave. This hop-scotch plays itself out on numerous forums.

One must remember, Linux IS Not Windows. This happens in all walks of life. Car to car, house to house, girlfriend to..you get the picture.

The best gift one can give oneself is forget the past, including Windows. Your free to help develop something new, and your not locked in to a closed and closely system.

I think this thread is about exploring alternatives that are faster than nautilus,not really a windows vs linux debate.

[bruno9779]

I think this thread is about exploring alternatives that are faster than nautilus,not really a windows vs linux debate.

That's what it has become.

There are a few older machines on which XP performs better that anything else. Guess what, those machines are made with the idea that ONLY XP will ever be installed on them.

I use XP at work, and I must say that it gets to the desktop very quickly at boot. Let's not mention the 2-5 minutes I have to wait before the desktop become usable.... After that the folders open quicker than nautilus, but file opening can be painstakingly long.

I think that you should benchmark speed overall, from boot to open file, from desktop to open file, instead of fractionating it in single operations.

[VMC]

I think this thread is about exploring alternatives that are faster than nautilus,not really a windows vs linux debate.

I didn't say anything about debate, but comparison. And I'm referring to the OP. Once the file manager is solved what other comparison will pop up. It's the kiss of death once you start comparing.

[jpeddicord]

Nautilus is slow compared to explorer.

I just came back checking it on my own dual boot system and it is slower to explorer.

And as far as it being 100 year old or 9 year old,it works mighty well and does everything needed for most users even today.

See, that's still anecdotal evidence. I could add that the reverse is true for me: Nautilus is fairly instant whereas Explorer takes its time; however that doesn't provide any more proof than a story. ;)

[kahumba]

I know most users here will disagree with me, but IMO nautilus sucks too bad. Its slow as hell even if you disable thumbnails. I remember in a old semprom, 1gb ram DDR and FX 5200 nautilus being soooo slow, unlikely in XP where file manager is pretty fast. IMO speed is a very important factor for any user who comes from Windows. My first impression (before switching to thunar, I don't know another file manager, if you know a better one tell me) was Hell, this is much slower than windows, why the **** should I switch if not only is harder "in the sense that you have to learn new stuff" but its also much slower?

I know there are other distros like Xubuntu and stuff, but the main thing here is Ubuntu, and IMO it gives a really bad impression such a slow file manager.

I agree with every word you say. It's long overdue. But.

People don't like being told this, especially in "such ecosystems", so of course your words are gonna be pulled through a chain of casuistry, many others will say that it's just not true or there's no evidence. You don't stand a chance with this issue.

From a technical point of view Nautilus is written in a lazy way (not to mention its interface which is being slightly cleaned up in Lucid), its developers just don't care about speed - if you dare say so - they'll just say you're lying or there's something wrong with your system and that on their computers "it's rather fast" or "very fast" (haha!). Period. It takes like a second or two to create a folder - they'll ignore/defy that, it is slow at listing (especially large) folders - they'll recur to casuistry: i.e. visiting a large folder (i.e. /usr/bin) for the 2nd time it lists files a lot faster (1st time it usually takes like 6-10 seconds!!) not because Nautilus suddenly became fast, but cause it's cached by the system after the 1st visit. So they'll keep quiet about how it went when you visited first time a large folder and talk about how fast it is when visiting next time after that (until next reboot). If you get what I mean. You should.

Creating a qualitative file browser is difficult, so nobody will do that unless Canonical does its own research on this issue which will of course not happen - they'll either say it's complete nonsense or that you're overreacting, either way things will stay the same. And again, besides that, don't forget the usual Linux fanatic who can't stand when someone is pointing at some thing within Linux/Ubuntu that sucks, they'll jump in and start lying how in their case it's completely different (and maybe also say that you're a troll or so).

[underquark]

With two similar machines (one on the left has 8GB RAM and three disks but I restricted to 1 for this "test", one on the right has 2GB but both running Jaunty, both with Asus motherboards, quad-core CPU's etc., etc.):

On the left - Nautilus
On the right - PCMan File Manager

Nautilus is slower at opening all/any folder but the 0.5s delay or whatever is barely humanly measurable. The icons for movies show up as nice thumbnails in Nauitlus but only as little spools of film-reel in File Manager. I prefer Nautilus, therefore for most tasks but File Manager is useful for rapidly navigating around when looking for something.

[rajeev1204]

See, that's still anecdotal evidence. I could add that the reverse is true for me: Nautilus is fairly instant whereas Explorer takes its time; however that doesn't provide any more proof than a story. ;)

damn!

[MadCow108]

I too find the gnu/linux filebrowser situation quite unbearable.
A file browser can have gazillions of nice feature, number one priority for usability is speed.
The nicest feature is useless to me if it takes a second to open a damn nearly empty folder (not to speak of full ones...)
You can't really do any "browsing" on older pcs even with the lightweight ones (and I tried almost all, pcman being the best in speed-to-feature ratio).

On XP this is no problem even with near antique pcs like mine.
Yes deleting of large folders and some other operations can be very very slow. But I browse far more often than I delete huge folders.
The xp browser is optimized for the way it is supposed to be used. Unfortunately this seems not the case for gnu/linux file browsers.

But what interests me is what is the reason for this speed difference?
I kind of doubt sloppy programming. Is it maybe the architectural difference of filesystems or the way mimetypes are detected?

[VMC]

This topic has nothing to do with Lucid.

Since the OP needed to compare, then at least compare from the same technologies. Is it faster or slower than Jaunty, or Karmic.

His other topic was moved to Cafe forum where this one belongs.

This forums is for Lucid. If Nautilus is performing slower than previous releases then we can research the reason. But to compare it to Windows of any vintage is a lesson in futility.

[jpeddicord]

This topic has nothing to do with Lucid.

Since the OP needed to compare, then at least compare from the same technologies. Is it faster or slower than Jaunty, or Karmic.

His other topic was moved to Cafe forum where this one belongs.

Valid point. :)

[HappyFeet]

Opening a folder takes sometimes like 1.5 secs!!! Whereas in XP its instant (like 0.1 sec)

XP also came out in 2001 and could run on 128mb ram. ;)

[CJ Master]

XP also came out in 2001 and could run on 128mb ram. ;)

Year doesn't matter. What matters is it's functionality and speed. It could've been released this year or in 1995.

[dragos240]

I use gentoo file manager....... with gentoo linux!

[nrs]

Pointing Nautilus to a directory like /usr/bin on my old Athlon machine was a recipe for fail. Dolphin loaded it pretty much instantly. I realize this is anecdotal, so if anyone has a way for me to benchmark it, I'll do it.

[tofuconfetti]

There is something else going on with this. I am running a fairly powerful system. I have a quad-core machine, 8 GB of RAM and fast, reliable drives. I have an Nvidia Geforce 9800 GTX+ video card. With compiz disabled, my systems AFTER I log in takes about 45 seconds for nautilus to stop using 80-100% of ore or TWO of my cores. I watch this using gkrellm desktop monitor and top in a terminal window.

I have searched all over looking for some common factor as to why this is happening. I have found the usual "disable assistive techonolgies", which is off on my machine. I have seen elaborate fixes like changing the scheduler settings. But his is embarassingly bad and so far nothing has made a dent.

I have 12 years of using linux under my belt, and this is one problem I have not been able to fix yet. I'd sure like to hear from someone who has fixed it with an explanation of WHY it works this way.

I've tried switching the disk interface from IDE emulation (SATA drives) to AHCI with no effect. Since I also use a couple of these machines for Hackintoshes, I have them set to AHCI most of the time in the BIOS. I've tried resetting Compiz on and off, no effect. I have installed the x86 and the x64 systems. They both load up really slow.

It is just dog slow!

[tofuconfetti]

Trying to alter some of the config files ended up in a bizarre desktop that I could not fix. So I reinstalled leaving most, but not all, of the home directory intact. I delete all of the .folders that pertained to gnome and nautilus. I left data and specific program folders in place. I also went back to the 64 bit version of Ubuntu 9.10.

Now Nautilus is back to being speedy. Too bad I have no idea why, but that was my fix.

[prodigy_]

Nautilus is slow. And Compiz is slow too. Anecdotal or not, it's still evidence and it should be dealt with. But so far I see only denial.

As it stands right now, KDE is more attractive than ever. It misses some useful things (like Gedit and Firefox) by default, but they can be easily added manually.

KDE is better looking AND faster than Gnome+Compiz these days. I hope that Gnome will gradually lose popularity and KDE will replace it as the default Ubuntu WM.

[chriswyatt]

sudo killall nautilus

[NightwishFan]

Nautilus starts and loads directories instantaniouly on my laptop using Debian. Actually Nautilus is one of my favorite free software projects. It works just how I would want a file manager to. I also like Konqueror, but I no longer like Dolphin.

[Dj Melik]

Give a try to PcMan File Manager. Fastest i've ever tried
Or you can use bash :D

[cariboo]

If you want fast, forget about a gui interface, try mc in a terminal, about the only thing it won't do is sftp. :)

[jpeddicord]

If you want fast, forget about a gui interface, try mc in a terminal, about the only thing it won't do is sftp. :)

Actually, if you mount the sftp location with gvfs, you could just cd to .gvfs/[remote share name]/ and you're good :D

[Khakilang]

I didn't notice the speed different on my 9 year old notebook as compare to my Window XP PC. But I don't really mind that 1 or 2 second. I believe there is a reason for its speed.

[Swagman]

Bah.. If he doesn't like Nautilus then Port Dopus (http://www.gpsoft.com.au)

or

XtreeGold (http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm?gclid=COe7ya66pqACFRk_lAodmgttZA)

[edit]

The Dopus link was actually a "hark-back" to the Amiga Days (Where Dopus came from). I didn't realise it was still in full development !! ( It was a bloody awesome file manager on Amigas and I expect it will have carried on that legacy)

[The Toxic Mite]

Nautilus just works, so shut yer whining mouth! :mad:

[Nerd King]

Nautilus is slow, but it's awesome. Much better than explorer, though I gotta admit Dolphin gives it a good run for its money.

[abhilashm86]

try using terminal!! its rapid fast, like features reverse search, cd and midnight commander (http://www.midnight-commander.org/), you'll be on cloud 9!!

[longtom]

Nautilus is not lightning fast. Having said that, it is uncomfortably slow with me only when I use it for the first time after starting up Ubuntu. After that it is bearable.

For really fast file access and file moving operations I use gnome-commander.

My Nautilus is also not able to access my mixed network. I had a thread open for that some long time ago.
However, again, gnome-commander does it without a hitch.

So I still use Nautilus as the default file manager and gnome-commander for the more advanced stuff. Shouldn't really be that way, so.

I also tried Dolphin on the latest Mepis Beta and that worked well, even seeing my mixed network from a virtual machine. (Which doesn't always work well in XP in a virtual machine).

So - all in all - Nautilus could do with some running repairs.

[TyrantWave]

Nautilus is slow. And Compiz is slow too. Anecdotal or not, it's still evidence and it should be dealt with. But so far I see only denial.

As it stands right now, KDE is more attractive than ever. It misses some useful things (like Gedit and Firefox) by default, but they can be easily added manually.

KDE is better looking AND faster than Gnome+Compiz these days. I hope that Gnome will gradually lose popularity and KDE will replace it as the default Ubuntu WM.

I find KDE hideous and a lot slower than my Gnome/Compiz setup on fresh installs =/.

[chriswyatt]

Same, it was one thing I was disappointed with when I switched to Ubuntu. I did try GNOME Commander a while back but I seem to remember it being buggy, perhaps it's better now, I'm giving it another go.

[NightwishFan]

I am serious, Nautilus rocks on Debian. There is no delay at all. My machine is a laptop too.

Clip:
http://sites.google.com/site/wayfarergroup22/nautilus.ogv?attredirects=0&d=1

[chriswyatt]

I think the problem is with folders with lots of files. If that folder didn't load up instantly then it would be worrying.

Fact - Windows Explorer handles folders with lots of files much better than Nautilus (in terms of speed).

[NightwishFan]

Mine loads directories smoothly as well, I think that is more related to filesystem performance. I do not have this applied, but doing this may improve directory loading:

sudo sysctl vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50

When you reboot it will be instantly restored to default (I think 100). To make it permanent run:

sudo su
then

echo 'vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50' >> /etc/sysctl.conf

Reboot and it will change. To remove after you made the change permanent just open /etc/sysctl.conf as root.

Credit and more tweaks here:
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=31275

[yester64]

I have to agree with the original thread starter that nautilus is kinda slow if you have a lot of files like images.
Once you open the folder it permanently load new items after and not all files show up until it generated a thumbnail and if you have a lot of files this can take a while.
I don't think that the take or leave it approach is valid.
Just because someone else doesn't think this is a problem that it is ok.
I have not found a solution to this either. Still looking.

[prodigy_]

I have to agree with the original thread starter that nautilus is kinda slow if you have a lot of files like images.
It's only a part of the problem. There's a visible delay if you try to open a folder with many items EVEN if this folder doesn't have any images and thumbnails are disabled.

Try opening "system32" from a modern Windows installation. That's 2500+ items and you'll see a 2-3 sec delay even if it's on RAID0. There are no images and Win7 Explorer opens it instantly.

[kaldor]

What? I love Nautilus. Everything (including "heavy" folders like Pictures) comes up instantly for me.

I have tried many managers, but Nautilus is my favourite. And now with the split-view... it's perfect.

[phrostbyte]

Nautilus opens into the home folder in about 0.5 seconds. The home folder is in its fresh post-install state so there's nothing flashy there. No thumbnails or anything. This happens on a pretty fast quad-core desktop rig. I don't really see why this should take 0.5 seconds. Nobody wants to optimize?

It's an I/O bound operation. Your "fast quad-core" has little to do with it. Mainly your HDD speed and access time.