PathFinder 4: Worth it?

[rampancy]

So the latest deal over at MacUpdate Promo is PathFinder 4, for 43% off...($19.95, down from $34.95).

Thing is, I'm not really sure if it's something worth pulling the trigger on (as a poor, sinking grad student, it's not like I have any money to spend on stuff like this anyway). From what I understand, the pros and cons seem to be:

Pros: Faster, more efficient UI (in general); integrated FTP and improved networking support (I guess this means it won't seize up spontaneously like John Hodgman in that "Get a Mac" ad if another computer I'm connected to via File Sharing goes to sleep or shuts down?)

Cons: Potentially confusing UI; potentially more memory-intensive; potentially awkward having this running alongside/on top of the Finder

Given the price, I may bite by the end of the day (which means I'll have to be sacrificing my usual daily infusions of Tim Horton's coffee), but right now I'm still sitting on the fence - I would like to hear from people here who've used it what their opinions of PF are.

[chucker]

potentially awkward having this running alongside/on top of the Finder

You don't need to leave the Finder running, although some apps don't correctly support Path Finder as an alternative.

[Brad]

I've tried the various versions of PathFinder and I can't stand it. Personally, I much rather stick with the slightly-quirky real Finder than move to PathFinder.

improved networking support (I guess this means it won't seize up spontaneously like John Hodgman in that "Get a Mac" ad if another computer I'm connected to via File Sharing goes to sleep or shuts down?)
I thought that the seizing-upon-unexpected-disconnect was a deeper problem in the network handling of the OS, not in the Finder. Is this actually a bullet on PathFinder's list of features or is this just an assumption?

[chucker]

I thought that the seizing-upon-unexpected-disconnect was a deeper problem in the network handling of the OS,

Well, of components underlying the Finder, such as Disk Arbitration.

Is this actually a bullet on PathFinder's list of features or is this just an assumption?

I don't know, but it's certainly possible for application's to completely ignore Apple's own components. For instance, Transmit's WebDAV is far more robust (and much faster) than OS X's.

[rampancy]

I thought that the seizing-upon-unexpected-disconnect was a deeper problem in the network handling of the OS, not in the Finder. Is this actually a bullet on PathFinder's list of features or is this just an assumption?

Well, I've seen stuff like, "Fixed some rare issues with network connections stalling", and "Improved refresh of directories on network volumes", and "Improved network scanning" on their changelog - but I'll admit that beyond that, I can only assume that it behaves better than the Finder if a connected computer goes to sleep or shuts down. :\

The one thing that bugs me is that I'd want it to be a seamless Finder replacement, especially on my memory-strapped iBook - something which from what I read, isn't fully possible (as what chucker pointed out).

[rampancy]

You don't need to leave the Finder running, although some apps don't correctly support Path Finder as an alternative.

I'm aware of that, but even some of the cocoatech devs recommend leaving the Finder running to avoid potential conflicts involving apps assuming that the Finder is there.

I wish there was a list somewhere of apps which don't support PF as a replacement (I've been searching Google, but to no avail). If the incompatibilities are minor, I wouldn't mind it that much.

EDIT: Found a rudimentary list at the cocoadev forums here (http://forum.cocoatech.com/showthread.php?t=2391).