LaunchBar vs. Quicksilver

On Apr 7, 2004, at 7:43 PM, abellaccesswave.ca wrote:

> As a registered user of LaunchBar since its early days, I'm now
> testing an alternative called Quicksilver
> <http://blacktree.com/apps/quicksilver/> and finding it very
> competitive. Still in development, Quicksilver does much of what
> LaunchBar does, and does it with substantial pizzazz. A very close
> contest on performance - none on price; Quicksilver is free while it's
> in beta.

I suspect that choice of launcher will become the next Mac vs. PC/emacs
vs. vi/Red Hat vs. Debian geek debate for the next few months.
LaunchBar, formerly dominant because of its unique and speedy
type-ahead-launching, is now getting hedged in on both sides by BOTH
Quicksilver and Butler (formerly "Another Launcher")!

<http://www.petermaurer.de/butler>

Launchbar, not to be beat, has released a public beta of it's upcoming
v4.0 release, and shows marked improvements in most areas that
Quicksilver touches. Quicksilver certainly gets the nod for whizzy
graphics, but it's no longer substantially faster than Launchbar 4.0b1.
Butler, on the other hand, does far more than just launch apps, as it
includes the ability to make customized menu items and various smart
controls which can, for example, search websites or control iTunes.
(All of which can be accessed from the type-ahead-launching-window.)

As it stands, they're all in beta, and everything that one of them
does, the other apps seem able to tack on without much trouble. I'd
recommend trying them all and see what works best. At least until
they're out of beta, they're all free to use. (Butler is donationware
and Launchbar will cost money -- or at least it has historically -- and
Quicksilver's final pricing hasn't been posted, but it's free while in
beta at the very least.)

--Nik

P.S. FWIW, I use Launchbar. Seems more stable than Butler and more
feature-filled than Quicksilver. Or maybe I'm just used to it...

On Apr 7, 2004, at 7:43 PM, abellaccesswave.ca wrote:
> As a registered user of LaunchBar since its early days, I'm now
> testing an alternative called Quicksilver
> <http://blacktree.com/apps/quicksilver/> and finding it very
> competitive. Still in development, Quicksilver does much of what
> LaunchBar does, and does it with substantial pizzazz. A very close
> contest on performance - none on price; Quicksilver is free while it's
> in beta.
>
> <http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=07623>

I tried QS for a bit. I found it slicker looking at first, but far
clunkier in constant use. There was a lot of cursoring around to pick
a menu, pick and action, etc.

The nice thing about LB is that 99 f the time it is completely
transparent to me. I don't even see it come up. I just hit the
key-combo I need and I'm where I want to be. Sometimes I have to wait
for the app I chose to open. Sometimes I look at the LB menu with LB 4
when I am using a web search, but that's about all.

It has been a tad slow with the beta of LB4 because it is not fully
trained yet.

At 12:46 AM -0600 4/9/04, LuKreme wrote:
>I tried QS for a bit. I found it slicker looking at first, but far
>clunkier in constant use. There was a lot of cursoring around to
>pick a menu, pick and action, etc.

        Cursoring around isn't necessary. In Qs bezel view, tabbing
        moves to the next sub-window and, where appropriate, opens a
        third. For example in a Google search, the left sub-window
        is the bookmark, the second is Safari (in my case), and the
        third is a text field for entry of the search term. In views
        in which the selection window appears, the arrow keys function
        to change the selection. A bit different than LB, but just as
        functional.

>The nice thing about LB is that 99 f the time it is completely
>transparent to me. I don't even see it come up. I just hit the
>key-combo I need and I'm where I want to be. Sometimes I have to
>wait for the app I chose to open. Sometimes I look at the LB menu
>with LB 4 when I am using a web search, but that's about all.

        I certainly agree with "completely transparent". After using it
        for months, I don't look at the menu either. After using Qs for
        a week, however, I rarely look at it either.

        Adam Bell

On Apr 9, 2004, at 7:45 AM, Adam Bell wrote:
> At 12:46 AM -0600 4/9/04, LuKreme wrote:
>> I tried QS for a bit. I found it slicker looking at first, but far
>> clunkier in constant use. There was a lot of cursoring around to
>> pick a menu, pick and action, etc.
>
> Cursoring around isn't necessary. In Qs bezel view, tabbing
> moves to the next sub-window and, where appropriate, opens a
> third.

Followed by down arrows to choose the actions to take. LB is much
cleaner in this respect, using a few modifiers for various actions, and
I found it almost always takes fewer keystrokes to do the same thing in
LB than in QS.

>LB is much
>cleaner in this respect, using a few modifiers for various actions,
>and I found it almost always takes fewer keystrokes to do the same
>thing in LB than in QS.

I agree. Perhaps it's just the novelty, but I'm enjoying Qs as much
as I did my first encounter with LB. I enjoy using software in its
early stages of development because well thought out commentary will
actually influence the author. Qs is slated to be much more than a
launcher - according to its developer it's got an underlying database
engine that will do lots of other things. I'm eager to see what they
are, and if the project falters, I'll fall back on LB 4+ without
batting an eye. I sure didn't toss it, and I will continue to upgrade
it and play with 4 when it's out of beta which does have a few
problems.

Adam

> I tried QS for a bit. I found it slicker looking at first, but far
> clunkier in constant use. There was a lot of cursoring around to pick
> a menu, pick and action, etc.

This has been my experience too. Quicksilver doesn't learn my preferred
selections as easily as LaunchBar, which has as one of its main benefits a
nearly flawless kind of interaction transparency (I haven't tried the
version 4 beta of LaunchBar yet).

I've become so accustomed to LaunchBar's uncanny ability to guess what I'm
looking for that in the first few days of using Quicksilver, I found it to
be really clumsy.

On the other hand, Quicksilver is (or soon will be) open source, and its
modular structure will probably allow for some pretty neat future
innovations, even if I find its current ability to search iTunes songs to be
completely useless since it can't actually cause iTunes to shift to a
different play list (unless I'm missing something by not digging deep enough
into the program, in which case my argument that Quicksilver isn't
sufficiently transparent is only bolstered). If I had to place a bet, I'd
wager that Quicksilver has longer term potential.

What I find interesting is that with these two applications receiving such
widespread praise, it seems to indicate that we're all kind of looking for a
return to command-line interfaces (albeit more easily manipulated ones).

Khoi

work: www.behaviordesign.com
play: www.subtraction.com

> Cursoring around isn't necessary. In Qs bezel view, tabbing
> moves to the next sub-window and, where appropriate, opens a
> third. For example in a Google search, the left sub-window
> is the bookmark, the second is Safari (in my case), and the
> third is a text field for entry of the search term. In views
> in which the selection window appears, the arrow keys function
> to change the selection. A bit different than LB, but just as
> functional.

This isn't entirely true. Cursor usage is necessary if you want to 'teach'
Quicksilver how to better return results next time.

In order to select a search result as your preferred, default selection, you
need to click on the little circle next to that result using the cursor and
then make a selection from a contextual pop-up menu. The manual says:

> The circle in the first column of the Results Window represents the Score of
> the item. This gives an indication of how well the selected item matches the
> search abbreviation you have entered. A higher score is represented by a
> darker gray color. If you click the Score circle, a contextual menu appears.
> Here, you can set the current item as the default match for the search
> abbreviation you entered, by choosing 'Make Default'. This is useful if you
> know that - for example - you want the folder 'Aqualung' to be found when you
> enter the abbreviation al. The Contextual menu also displays the current Score
> of the item, and allows you to decrease the score if it has previous been
> assigned an abbreviation.

I looked for a key command but couldn't find one. (The author suggested
command-option-D on the forums at Blacktree, not realizing that that key
command is for deleting a result from your hard drive!)

Naturally, this would be easy to remedy in the sense that a key command
could be added, but that's more of a band-aid than a solution. Hopefully the
author will improve the way Quicksilver can learn your preferred results so
that it functions more like LaunchBar.

Best,
Khoi

P.S. Are there any Windows users who can compare LaunchBar and Quicksilver
to AppRocket?

http://www.candylabs.com/approcket/

work: www.behaviordesign.com
play: www.subtraction.com

on 4/9/04 2:56 pm, Khoi Vinh at publicsubtraction.com wrote:

> What I find interesting is that with these two applications receiving such
> widespread praise, it seems to indicate that we're all kind of looking for a
> return to command-line interfaces (albeit more easily manipulated ones).

What tools like these show me is that we're looking for interfaces that
combine the strengths of both GUIs and command lines. There are some things
that a GUI does better than a command line, and some things that a command
line does better than a GUI. LaunchBar's popularity makes it clear that
unless you have a relatively small number of applications and files that you
work with, typing a few letters to bring one up is more efficient than
drilling through windows or populating some kind of dock.

On the other hand, copying files by dragging an icon from one window to
another is much more efficient for most people than typing an arcane command
in the terminal.

Mark D. McKean
qpandaquantumpanda.com

At 2:55 PM -0400 4/9/04, Khoi Vinh wrote:
>
>P.S. Are there any Windows users who can compare LaunchBar and Quicksilver
>to AppRocket?

I installed AppRocket 1.0 as a demo and used it for a few days on my
Windows XP Laptop (a client's requirement, not my choice), but I
didn't find it enough like LB to compete at all and when the demo
lapsed, I trashed it. That was a while ago, however. It hasn't
evolved since, either.

>> What I find interesting is that with these two applications receiving such
>> widespread praise, it seems to indicate that we're all kind of looking for a
>> return to command-line interfaces (albeit more easily manipulated ones).
>
> What tools like these show me is that we're looking for interfaces that
> combine the strengths of both GUIs and command lines. There are some things
> that a GUI does better than a command line, and some things that a command
> line does better than a GUI. LaunchBar's popularity makes it clear that
> unless you have a relatively small number of applications and files that you
> work with, typing a few letters to bring one up is more efficient than
> drilling through windows or populating some kind of dock.
>
> On the other hand, copying files by dragging an icon from one window to
> another is much more efficient for most people than typing an arcane command
> in the terminal.

I would agree with this completely. I didn't mean to imply above that tools
like these undercut the validity of GUIs. Rather I was looking to point out
the irony: the Mac, at its introduction, was intended by Steve Jobs to be
used almost entirely without the keyboard, at least for
commands/manipulation. Now, thanks to programs like this, the Mac is leading
the way in bringing back some of the benefits of command line interfaces.

work: www.behaviordesign.com
play: www.subtraction.com

On Apr 9, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Khoi Vinh wrote:

> This isn't entirely true. Cursor usage is necessary if you want to
> 'teach'
> Quicksilver how to better return results next time.
>
> In order to select a search result as your preferred, default
> selection, you
> need to click on the little circle next to that result using the
> cursor and
> then make a selection from a contextual pop-up menu.

This is very similar to the method Butler uses to achieve the same.
With LaunchBar however, I don't have to manually intervene at all. It
remembers what I picked last time I typed that in, and if I type the
same thing again, that item will come to the front. If I've launched
multiple items with the same abbreviation, all those items will move to
the top, in descending order of the frequency that they are chosen. It
also seems to extend to typing abbreviations which are similar to my
usual one. So if I type "MSW" to open Microsoft Word, and later type
"MS", it will guess Microsoft Word, assuming no conflicting learning
has gone on.

That sort of total transparency and a total lack of effort on my part
to teach it, is what makes LaunchBar seamless for me to use. With both
Butler and Quicksilver, I've had to spend much more time coaching the
program to do what I want. LaunchBar seems to know. (Although,
Quicksilver does a better job guessing than Butler seems to.)

--Nik

Agreed. I looked at QS and went back to LaunchBar. I'm now using LB 4.

For a long time I resisted trying LaunchBar since I've always been
happy with DragThing. When I tried LB for the first time, I was hooked
and purchased it the next day. Now I almost never go to DragThing -
hitting Cmd-Esc and typing 2-3 letters is a lot faster.

On Apr 9, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Khoi Vinh wrote:
> In order to select a search result as your preferred, default
> selection, you
> need to click on the little circle next to that result using the
> cursor and
> then make a selection from a contextual pop-up menu. The manual says:

No thank you. The reason I use LB is to keep my hands away from the
mouse. If I have to click on ANYTHING the utility has failed its
primary purpose.

kreme wrote:
>>In order to select a search result as your preferred, default
>>selection, you need to click on the little circle next to that result
>>using the cursor and then make a selection from a contextual pop-up
>>menu. The manual says:
>No thank you. The reason I use LB is to keep my hands away from the
>mouse. If I have to click on ANYTHING the utility has failed its
>primary purpose.

But you don't need to use the mouse. Quicksilver does rank items
automatically, and it does give items you select a higher priority so
that they will appear on top. It's just that you have to additional
feature of ranking items manually.

Lucas

There is another one, CuteType, besides the intelligent quick launch, it also has cool feature. word autocompletion when you typing. When I am coding, I can't live without it. it is at http://www.tooto.com/cutetype/

CuteType looks suspiciously like a Window application.

I've gone from Launchbar 2 to Quicksilver, and now use Butler 4.0b23. Butler defies a software review, given its extensive number of features. The initial configuration phase is demanding given the bewildering number of options. But rewarding, and now logical in retrospect.

Its features include subsets of functionality found in Launchbar, iSeek, URL Manager Pro, Tigerlaunch, CopyPaste, and iKey. If it doesn't gain any more features, I'd be happy.

On May 9, 2005, at 9:31 PM, fcchuan wrote:

> I've gone from Launchbar 2 to Quicksilver, and now use Butler
> 4.0b23. Butler defies a software review, given its extensive number
> of features. The initial configuration phase is demanding given the
> bewildering number of options. But rewarding, and now logical in
> retrospect.

Butler is one of those applications that you either swear by or swear
at. On the recommendation of a friend, I installed it; it lasted
about two days before I became so frustrated with it that I removed
it. It's possible that if I spent the time to get it configured
correctly, I would like it, but I don't see it becoming useful enough
for me to merit that investment of time.

This is not to say that it's the cat's pajamas for other people -- it
just seems that it's one of those software packages that nobody feels
ambivalent about.

Charlton


--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilburchromatico.net