Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:24 UTC
Mac OS X Via Ars Technica: "After almost 10 years of testing, Quicksilver lays the beta tag to rest (if the lack of an eszett brings a tear to your eye, you can always reminisce by hitting option+S on your keyboard). What does this release mean? It means more than just a change in the version numbering system - it signifies a maturity of Quicksilver and a sign of what's to come." Quicksilver is fantastic for those of us for whom command+space and the dock combined is not enough. While I personally don't use Quicksilver (I use Spotlight through command+space to launch applications), I know of quite a few Mac users who swear by it.
Order by: Score:
Alfred
by bowkota on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:24 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Alfred is actually a much better app, particularly the workflows in the new version.
It's also better maintained; updated more frequently

Reply Score: 3

RE: Alfred
by LoveQuicksilver on Wed 27th Mar 2013 20:53 UTC in reply to "Alfred"
LoveQuicksilver Member since:
2013-03-27

14 updates in 2 years for Quicksilver. I wouldn't call that slacking off. ;)

Reply Score: 1

No it isnt
Member since:
2005-11-14

After having used OS X 10.3 with Quicksilver, the whole UI just seemed so cumbersome and clumsy without it. Of course 10.3 was abandoned the second 10.4 was released, as is customary on the Mac, leaving me with a really nifty piece of extremely buggy abandonware, which in essence is what the second-to-latest version of OS X was as well. Keeping up with just the minimum specs for running updated software, even when it's free, soon becomes hideously expensive.

I suppose Quicksilver is not mandatory when you've got Spotlight, but nine years ago it really exposed how inefficient OS X actually was. I never really missed it on other platforms.

Reply Score: 3

Good news
by MOS6510 on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:01 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

It's one of the first things I install on a new system. Once you're used to it it's hard to live without.

Reply Score: 2