PDA

View Full Version : XFCE vs Gnome vs KDE



Rackerz
December 17th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Ok, i know about KDE and Gnome, some of there pros and cons from personal experience. But i know nothing about XFCE, is it just as functional as KDE and Gnome? Is it lacking alot of features? Is it worth using on the Desktop?

Thanks

fuscia
December 17th, 2005, 08:58 PM
it's worth trying. so is fluxbox. you'll end up having to decide for yourself.

Rackerz
December 17th, 2005, 09:01 PM
So there up to the job on using them for the desktop?

benplaut
December 17th, 2005, 09:05 PM
try them all, and stick with whatever you like :)

tseliot
December 17th, 2005, 09:22 PM
So there up to the job on using them for the desktop?
Well it also depends on your computer. Mainly (but not only) on the amount of RAM.
Both KDE and GNOME are RAM hogs (according to my experience, with 2GB RAM) while XFCE is more lightweight.
I have tried Both GNOME and KDE for my desktop (I started with KDE) and I think (again according to my personal experience) GNOME is much more stable.

I use XFCE for my laptop and I find it great, lightweight (I have 192mb RAM) and stable.

aysiu
December 17th, 2005, 09:26 PM
XFCE has most of your basic desktop needs--a taskbar, a panel, icons, a menu...

There are a few things missing: automount, desktop icons, and a dynamic trash can icon.

Here's what I do to get around that: run gnome-volume-manager and nautilus, then save the session; also create two trash can icons--one that opens the trash contents when clicked, another that empties the trash.

Other than that, XFCE's pretty cool. It's fast... and fast!

tseliot
December 17th, 2005, 09:31 PM
...Here's what I do to get around that: run gnome-volume-manager and nautilus, then save the session...
OR you can use ivman instead of gnome-volume-manager and use emelfm or xffm instead of nautilus (and this last thing will make it even more lightweight)

patrick295767
December 18th, 2005, 12:17 AM
My favourite is the fastest & lightest !!
I choosed fvwm but thsi requires more experience !
I am using fvwm with gnome apps and also a bit of kde prg.
mainly : "fvwm desktop with gnome-panel", with a screen scrolling, efficient thumbnails ...
autohiding windows ...

Have a look there to give u an idea, and let me know what u think about this :
http://dev.gentoo.org/~taviso/screenshots/tour.avi

Kind regards,

Patrick

d1337
December 18th, 2005, 03:31 AM
I'd have to say that it depends a great deal on your machine, as previously mentioned, as well as what you intend to do on it. I have several machines running Ubuntu with anywhere from 256mb RAM to 1GB Ram. The machines with 256 drag a bit, no doubt about it. But even one of my workstations with 512mb of RAM only _really_ uses about 1/2 of my RAM for typical everyday stuff like webbrowsing, checking e-mail etc. On the machine I'm at now, free reports:

:~$ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 516492 501940 14552 0 68924 191708
-/+ buffers/cache: 241308 275184
Swap: 1510068 0 1510068

but I'm only using Firefox and a few gdesklets. If you are running a database and some intensive queries, or decoding/encoding video and audio files, you'd see my -/+ buffers/cache spike to the top and my box would dip into Swap...which is OK if it's not what you do all the time. I run XFCE on my servers if I want a gui because it's light, simple and functional, but if you have a machine with some guts and you rarely use memory intensive applications, you shouldn't worry yourself with it unless you just want to.

But thats just my 1/2 a penny

d1337

_linux_
May 6th, 2006, 07:54 PM
I have a 334 MHz Pentium II and only ~230 MB of RAM. So would it be a good choice for me to switch to Xfce?

bt224
May 6th, 2006, 08:22 PM
works great on my PII 400 with 128. Gnome was unusable.

Sef
May 6th, 2006, 11:29 PM
I have a 334 MHz Pentium II and only ~230 MB of RAM. So would it be a good choice for me to switch to Xfce?

Yes, it would be a good choice.

Imexius
May 12th, 2006, 01:10 AM
Actually thunar now supports an automounter in XFCE.

carney1979
May 13th, 2006, 06:28 AM
tseliot:

"OR you can use ivman instead of gnome-volume-manager and use emelfm or xffm instead of nautilus..."

Could you explain a bit more in depth or provide a link?

You got my curiosity up....

David

stansz
May 13th, 2006, 06:47 AM
mm well on my laptop im using gnome and its fine so far...its got 512 ram

but on my olllld laptop (plll 700...128ram) i have gnome and although not used intensively..its not too bad

brady618
May 15th, 2006, 10:43 PM
I've been using XFCE for several days now, and my experience has been very good so far. On my computer with only 256 ram I found Gnome to be by far the most sluggish. I loved KDE, both the look and feel of it, but it still didn't react very quickly and took quite a few seconds to open any apps. With Xubuntu, my computer seems to work nearly 10x quicker. It never takes more than 5 secs to open a program (well, sometimes it does when I'm updating my Dapper files). I've even got the desktop to look just about as good as it did in KDE (although I miss the transparent toolbar, which apparently you can tweak XFCE to do, but my tiny intel chip couldn't handle it.) Anyway, definetely worth trying for anyone looking for a bit more speed.

greggh
June 6th, 2006, 12:58 AM
I'm pretty new to Linux (used it ocassionally on my friend's computer). I just installed Ubuntu 6.06 and then installed kubuntu-desktop and xubuntu-desktop. I enjoy using kubuntu the most, although it is noticably slower than xubuntu. I like xubuntu also, but not as much. I don't care for the regular ubuntu gnome desktop at all, just something about gnome doesn't seem natural and intuitive.

IYY
June 6th, 2006, 02:11 AM
I prefer IceWM. It's very fast (much faster than XFCE), never has any problems, and can be made to look very attractive.

mcpish
August 4th, 2006, 03:47 PM
I love XFCE but I don't like how Xubuntu has auto-configured the desktop to look and work similar to Gnome rather than the default XFCE config which is more like the old CDE (Common Desktop Environment). After I installed Xubuntu I changed it back to work like CDE with the single Application bar/minimized window icons only/etc

ColdDeath
August 4th, 2006, 04:35 PM
Patrick, thats a really good setup! Must've taken you a while!

I have seen other people make good setups in fvwm aswell, it seems very customisable.

xp_newbie
November 12th, 2006, 11:30 PM
Another source of comparison I found here:

http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/#

HTH,
Alex

Mrpelletier
November 12th, 2006, 11:42 PM
Im pretty new to linux and was always wondering the differance between them all still i havent had the time to find out
:mad:

BLTicklemonster
November 13th, 2006, 12:34 AM
I've tried gnome, kde, kubuntu, xfce, fvvm, icewhatever, and xfce seemed really fast, though I never gave fvvm much of a try out. I'll have to delve back into this all again. They're still there on my dapper install.

Bartender
November 13th, 2006, 12:53 AM
I'm trying out Xubuntu and like it except for the points already mentioned. Trying to figure out how to make a few icons using the "Launcher" thingie. Can anyone point out a few guides for making Xfce a little bit (not too much) more convenient?
In GNOME, I liked having the "Modem Monitor" icon in the panel. That was handy for firing up the modem. Never have used wvdial, and don't know how to ring out with Xfce!
I thought someone said the other day that applications don't start up any faster in Xubuntu. Is that true? I haven't put a timer on any applications, then switched back to Ubuntu to do some comparisons.

joshsherman
November 14th, 2006, 04:58 PM
Just thought I'd give my $0.02 on the subject, since over the past week I've done a handful of reinstalls to come to a single conclusion.

First off, I'm a long time slackware user. I loved it, I still do, but I'm still giving Ubuntu a shot. That being said, I've been using Ubuntu for a few months (3-4 or so) and I've liked it thus far, but then I started to think that I should switch to KDE (since an app I wanted to use Qtopia Desktop was Qt) and because of the Linus Torvalds "tell everyone to use KDE" threads from way back when.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I migrated Ubuntu to Kubuntu, and was fairly displeased with the results (mostly a hodge podge of packages, and not a vanilla Kubuntu load). From there I went ahead and installed Slack 11 which came with KDE. After being in Slack again and realizing I couldn't simply run `sudo apt-get install apache2 mysql-server-4.1 php5 php5-cli` to get my development box up to speed, I went ahead and installed Kubuntu 6.10 from disc.

So now I'm back in KDE, and I was finding some issues with some programs. This led to me installing some Gnome apps to bridge the gap. Then I got to thinking, wait a second, even though I used KDE for my last 6 months of Slackware use... I still am way more productive in Gnome.

This led me right back to reinstalling Ubuntu. A very large waste of time in my opinions, but sometimes it's good to do something like that. You know what they say, you don't know what you got until it's gone. Such is my relationship with Gnome, even if the developers feels users are idiots (as per Linus).

So yeah, use what you have to use, try them all, and don't listen to anyone's opinions on what they like to use, cause that information is only relevant for that person. Oh yeah, and sorry I didn't mention fluxbox or xfce or any other alternate wdm's. It's mainly because I don't like em and don't use them. No hard feelings though.

-j

glaucon
December 30th, 2006, 11:38 PM
im sure you could use a few more cents.

I started out a gnome user, then tried KDE and liked it... for a while but realized i liked gnome better. I experimented with Xubuntu on my desktop and i can say for sure after only a week that it is above and beyond my favorate. it just seems less cluttered than the others, not only is my hardware loving it but its really easy for me to manage too. It just has a wonderful feel to it. in comparison the others seem bogged down and clunky. another nice thing is that because the install is so minimal you can shape it exactly as you want it without a lot of extra programs preinstalled. I have switched both computers now to Xfce and i'm very happy.

but it really just comes down to what you like. but definitely worth a try,

BLTicklemonster
December 31st, 2006, 12:43 AM
LInus wants me to run bloated KDE?

I'm happy with fluxbox and icewm and gnome, thankyouverymuch. Don't and won't have kde on my computer.

BLTicklemonster
December 31st, 2006, 12:43 AM
... so I guess that makes me an idiot.

maxamillion
December 31st, 2006, 12:48 AM
Linus has been an idol of mine for years, but the day he said "Just use KDE" I lost all respect for him. If he were to say "I use KDE, because I enjoy it" that would have been fine, but the whole point of this thing we call the "open source movement" is choice and freedom. An endorsement towards the project you prefer is one thing, a flat out "Use this, everything else is crap" is just arrogant.

I use Xubuntu because I like Xfce4, it is a really good balance of light weight vs. feature set and it suites my needs. Should you use it? If you want to.

Lord Illidan
December 31st, 2006, 01:01 AM
Linus has been an idol of mine for years, but the day he said "Just use KDE" I lost all respect for him. If he were to say "I use KDE, because I enjoy it" that would have been fine, but the whole point of this thing we call the "open source movement" is choice and freedom. An endorsement towards the project you prefer is one thing, a flat out "Use this, everything else is crap" is just arrogant.

I use Xubuntu because I like Xfce4, it is a really good balance of light weight vs. feature set and it suites my needs. Should you use it? If you want to.

He did not force everyone to use KDE. Perhaps he was fedup with the way GNOME devs force advanced users to search in config files or gconf-editor to change some more advanced configurations, unlike KDE. And personally, I agree with Linus on that score. He's entitled to his own opinion, and just so are you.

maxamillion
December 31st, 2006, 01:04 AM
You are right, he is. Its just the way he made the statement that was upsetting.

EZ-man
December 31st, 2006, 02:04 AM
Here is something that might help

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=327916

jon61484
February 22nd, 2007, 11:30 PM
I use Xubuntu because I like Xfce4, it is a really good balance of light weight vs. feature set and it suites my needs. Should you use it? If you want to.

I started out with ubuntu because I found it on the internet, liked the site, and the overall look. I installed it once I got a complete running non-hardware issued system up and running. I was interested in xubuntu because on their site it basically told me it's for older systems if you don't want to tie up too much processing power. So I have Ubuntu Edgy 6.10, as of today (2/22/07) I updated everything I could, and I went into Synaptic Package Manager and installed everything that had to do with xubuntu.

Now when I log in I can choose XFCE or Gnome. From what I've seen so far XFCE really does perform FASTER on my computer, and I'm new to linux in general, although my computer knowledge makes learning fun and new so it's cool. I'm not sure what the down and dirty differences between the two are, but if there's something I want to do that will only work in gnome for whatever reason, I can do so. and if I want to do something that only works in XFCE, I can do that too and it's an easy transition. The taskbar (as I call it lol) at the top is different, which means I have to refind everything, but I like both and XFCE runs quicker. example....

Dual 500mhz P3 on a gigabyte dual slot 1
256 MB PC100 SDRAM
20GB Maxtor UDMA/33 HDD
e-machines DVD-ROM
Antec 350w P/S
some old AMD Duron full size tower case

With my system monitor on, and running programs, this is what I'm getting running xubuntu, in XFCE...
rythmbox running some pacc files, this window of firefox, Gaim open talking to one person, and system monitor running along with of course gimp snapping a picture. the first image is just taking the picture. the second image is waiting a bit after saving that image and taking another one for comparison.

http://bandcon-47.imeem.com/g/6734b9a38dbe1b30864a96eb9ec4d302.jpg

http://c08a.scl1.imeem.com/g/1842f5572b4b7abb0e5707a89691afc8.jpg

my next post I will do the same in Gnome. same stuff. same things.


EDIT-

so uh... I've originally installed ubuntu 6.10. then I installed all the updates. then I installed all the synaptec xubuntu files. switching between xfce and gnome as I log out and back in, I am running firfox to type this but gaim, the system monitor, and rythmbox won't open up. they each have a bar at the bottom saying "starting (xx program)" and then that bar dissapears and that's it. So I need to figure out what is going on before I can post similar pictures from the gnome portion. waaaah... fwiw I remember without installing anything off a fresh ubuntu 6.10 install it would run 80% and 80% of CPU1 and CPU2 quite frequently during normal activities.

neutrino15
February 26th, 2007, 08:47 PM
I really like XFCE, and yes, it is worth it to try.. (whats the harm?)

On another note, I use linux alot as a virtual machine. (I am trying to get a good install on an external). For a VM, I would highly suggest Xubuntu. Its really snappy and fun on even a 128mbRAM 2mbVRAM "Host Optimized" Virtual Machine!

peregrine
April 1st, 2007, 08:52 PM
Think of it this way. Gnome and KDE are like SUV's they are big, they are full of really nice and easy to use features, and they are fairly stable. But they use alot of gas and are poor for natural resources. And cause its so expensive on the system resources your customization is limited.

XFCE is like a little honda civic. Its small, its clean, it gets good gas mileage, and is really stable. The downside though is that you don't get the features or the ease of use. Yes it will get you from point A to point B and it does come with many standard features (file manager, network manager, THunar gives you plug and play) but if you want the fancy features your going to have to do some work and install some programs. Also Cause xfce is so cheap on the system reasources you have more room for customization.

Also you will find installing both KDE and GNOME applications on XFCE to be much easier then on gnome or kde. I use Xfce cause I love efficiancy and simplicity.

If it isn't there it cant break.

Peregrine

neufelry
May 11th, 2007, 09:08 PM
I had really wanted to get into linux for the longest time, but always had trouble getting started. A couple weeks into almost completely severing my windows ties (just holding on for WoW -- had trouble with wine) I am still fairly undecided. I started off with gnome, however in my dual monitor setup I couldn't see a straight forward way to set different backgrounds for each monitor. From there I tried xfce, its pretty good, I have a fairly fast computer though, so i didnt notice any big improvement. Just today, actually, I installed kde on a laptop I am fooling around with and I really like it. The thing i like to most is that yes, if i want to simply browse some menus to find a setting or two, thats fine, maybe i'll only change it once, maybe it took me five minutes. If i couldn't do the change by the menu I would have to search about the internet for the file to configure that option. Not to say I wouldn't get it done, but I would spend way more time than i would like.

AlexFoster
August 25th, 2007, 06:58 PM
I've looked around but I can't find a thread about switching between desktops. I used Gnome for a short period of time and liked it, then I installed xubuntu which had xfce, which I'm not so crazy about. Is it possible to have Gnome on xubuntu? And how would I do so?

mali2297
August 25th, 2007, 07:17 PM
I've looked around but I can't find a thread about switching between desktops. I used Gnome for a short period of time and liked it, then I installed xubuntu which had xfce, which I'm not so crazy about. Is it possible to have Gnome on xubuntu? And how would I do so?

Just install ubuntu-desktop. Read this guide:

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/gnome

markp1989
September 10th, 2007, 06:14 PM
on my laptop (1.5ghz 512mb Ram) I want quick start up times, would XFCE start faster then gnome?

jbaerbock
September 23rd, 2007, 07:16 AM
If you go the route of Xfce try Linux Mint's version. Nice fast and uncluttered but has all the nice codecs and etc... you'd normally have to add yourself including ntfs automount.

dptxp
September 23rd, 2007, 09:16 AM
If hardware permits, nothing like Gnome.
Simple navigation. Cool. Stable.
It is a matter of personal choice.

mikecomua
October 13th, 2007, 03:36 PM
I have a laptop, and I am kind of concerned about battery life. Does xfce use less of it?

Achetar
December 14th, 2007, 04:18 PM
Yes, my personal favorite from KDE, GNOME, XFCE4, E17, AfterStep, FluxBox, and BlackBox is XFCE4 hands down (I use it with some GNOME stuff thru xfapplet)

And mikecomua, XFCE4 does use less. Still, I wish I could control fan speed (can't do that in any of them :sad:)

undine
December 16th, 2007, 10:58 PM
[Refer to sig]. I suppose I just like the philosophy of Gnome: feature complete, but beautiful in its simplicity.

CCNA_student
December 16th, 2007, 11:14 PM
I believe that KDE is the best, Xfce second, and is Gnome last.

cybertron3000
January 21st, 2008, 08:16 PM
I asked on the boards here and got an answer as to how to install the xfce function, and did it. So far I am not noticing a difference in speed or RAM use at all, but like you, I am experimenting to see what the "big diff" is between these options really is.

Arijan
February 20th, 2008, 04:40 PM
I used gnome on my old pc, and it was perfect. But somehow, on my new notebook it started to give me a lot of bugs! X server just freezes couple of times per day - starting with non responding taskbar and icons. That's probably some hardware issue or/and some memory error...
I tried lots of linux versions with gnome, and all of them produced the same issues.

Though I have tried before kde and xfce, I just wanted to see how is going with them on my notebook. And there's the solution!
Xfce is working perfectly perfect! No bugs, no breaks. It's much more simpler at the other side - but that's what I needed.

So, the choice is up to the taste and hardware.

faical117
March 31st, 2008, 04:32 PM
I prefer gnome and xfce :popcorn:

NightwishFan
March 31st, 2008, 04:34 PM
I dual booted Kubuntu KDE4 Hardy and Xubuntu Hardy and I found that I like XFCE4 so much better so I am going to use that at least until 8.10 :)

XFCE rocks! :guitar:

cardinals_fan
April 1st, 2008, 01:31 AM
1. Xfce: Fast, stable, clean... what's not to love?
2. Fluxbox: Not as pretty as Xfce, but excessively configurable and mind-bendingly fast. (This could also include Openbox, I just prefer Flux)
3. Sawfish: This ex-GNOME WM is very usable as a lightweight desktop. Almost as good as the *boxes above.
4. (tie) E17: Buggy, but there's lots of potential and it's fast.
4. (tie) IceWM: Unremarkable but fast and stable.
5. GNOME: It feels like they're trying to bury the config tools deep inside gconf, and it's slow. Could be worse, I guess...
6. KDE: I hate Qt! KDE is slow and bloated. I'll pass.

NightwishFan
April 1st, 2008, 01:38 AM
KDE4 sounds great but it is unremarkable in application. It did feel alot lighter though.

fiddler616
July 30th, 2008, 03:55 PM
RE: jon61484's post on 2/22/07:
I'm trying the same thing with GNOME/KDE, which is nice, but it's kind of irritating having twice as many bundled apps--doesn't that happen with GNOME/Xfce?

doorknob60
July 30th, 2008, 04:21 PM
I like them all, and this is what I use them for:

KDE: I use for my desktop, I love it, and I recommend it to more advanced users
Gnome: I recommend it to people new to Linux
Xfce: I used it on my laptop (192 RAM), great for old computers. I use Lxde now though.

Borsook
September 13th, 2008, 02:28 PM
I've been using Xubuntu for a year before installing Ubuntu on the other PC and I must say the opinion that XFCE is faster but poorer than Gnome is unjustified. With the Xubunutu configuration I'd say it's richer and more user friendly than Gnome (better panel applets, configuration in one screen, open terminal here), the interface is rather identical to Gnome, with only right-click options on the menu items missing.

ethann
March 30th, 2009, 08:27 PM
I think all the notes in here are pretty reasonable and very true. I also wanted to try xfce4, but actually didn't install xubuntu-desktop, but some basic xfce4 files. I read somewhere that it should be (even) a little faster this way.. Also tried a few other alternatives, the same way: All on an ubuntu initial install.

So, here is my experience:

-xfce4: feels faster than Gnome, and if you don't use some cool thing like compiz, its compositing is kind of more impressive than gnome's metacity. The problem is that in year 2009, it seems that it is a little bit from 2005 (just missing something, but dunno what it is, you know). BUT, it IS faster than my gnome.

-Fluxbox: Super-fast and super minimal. As, I said, in 2009 we are used to a little more flashy things. In Fluxbox you can achieve them, but you need time and editing. I don't usually have time. So, next one.

-E17: Super-fast and impressive. And cool effects without stress on my laptop. Some nice easy features are missing, and a few bugs persist (development stillll).

-E17 with OpenGEU or Ozos: Great! And more complete than a simple E17 install over ubuntu. But you have to be prepared for bugs. OpenGEU seems a little bit more ready.

-Gnome: My best and most complete experience so far. It is very professional and you feel that nothing is missing (contrary to xfce and certainly contrary to fluxbox). BUT it is so, soo unresponsive. Not at all ready to work at your will.

-KDE: sorry, don't like it. I had hardware problems with it, and the way it has its options organized make me angry.

-Bottom line **for my opinion**:
1.PLEASE PEOPLE MAKE GNOME FASTER AND I WILL WORSHIP YOU!!!
(2.Bonus, very irrelevant note:Be very careful about the themes and engines you use. It makes a noticeable difference.)

Ethan
:biggrin:

My faithful laptop: Compaq Presario 370MB RAM, some 1.5 GB swap, ATI Radeon XPress200M. much appetite for Linux.

quintus314
July 8th, 2009, 02:07 PM
I hate to reopen a three-year-old thread, but I wanted to warn you about XFCE.
Last year, I ran Xubuntu, and it worked wonderfully on the live CD. So I decided to install it on another partition. Later, I decided to delete it. PROBLEM: It wanted to delete the SECOND partition (Xubuntu), but it messed up disk utility and deleted the FIRST one. YAY! All my iTunes, Pictures, Programs (that I payed for), etc.

So be careful with XFCE.

On the other hand, Gnome is ultra functional, and very stable, but ugly.
KDE is awesome and looks really nice. It's functional, and I love the way that the widgets work on my desktop.

So a suggestion, try KDE, and specifically, Kubuntu. I love it, and it DIDN'T DELETE MY HARD DRIVE.

Good luck!

2 x $0.01 = quintus314

NightwishFan
July 8th, 2009, 04:34 PM
Xubuntu uses the same tools under the hood as Ubuntu and Kubuntu. It was likely an improperly burned disk, or user error. XFCE is a desktop environment that is similar to GNOME but with a focus on GUI configuration and reduced resource use. It should use most GNOME software flawlessly. If you have a question you should probably start a new thread, by your own advice. Good luck, hopefully there is no problem like that with Xubuntu. :p

xsandz
August 2nd, 2009, 07:08 PM
I hv heard that xfce is much more faster than kde and gnome though it is based on gnome...its basically based upon modest hardwares....but i still hvn't used xfce...

XubuRoxMySox
August 2nd, 2009, 10:17 PM
I find LXDE simpler as well as faster than Xfce. It looks a little like Win98 though on first use, but that is easily fixed.

I've been using Openbox only and have found that LXDE adds no weight and no loss of speed and is extremely light on resources.

-Robin

Tynach
October 12th, 2009, 06:57 AM
I dual booted Kubuntu KDE4 Hardy and Xubuntu Hardy and I found that I like XFCE4 so much better so I am going to use that at least until 8.10 :)

XFCE rocks! :guitar:

You can install and run two different desktop environments at the same time without dual-booting. Just install through synaptic.

Anyway, I personally like the newest KDE (4.3.2). It's finally stable enough for use, and has plenty of features and settings to keep me busy.

I do kinda like Gnome, but the thing is I like to heavily configure every setting I can find in my computer... And Gnome doesn't really let you without using gconf-editor, and using THAT reminds me too much of Windows registry editing.

KDE doesn't have to be a Windows look-alike. I personally have 'Xbar' on top, allowing a Mac OS X like feel with the menus (in QT apps, at least). I have both the top and bottom bar set to 'Windows can cover', so my applications take up 100% of the screen when I'm doing stuff, but I can still just glance at my computer and look at the time if nothing's up (otherwise, a quick movement of the mouse to the bottom fixes that).

KDE may be a bit of a resource hog, but I just found the 'Power Management' plasmoid, which has a very customizable and comprehensive power management system. In Gnome, I had to have several applets on my top bar for scaling the frequencies of my CPUs (I run dual-core) individually... Don't have to do that on KDE. It can even disable compositing for you, and dim the screen. All in one centrally located config window... In Gnome it's a hassle going through the power options just to set how to dim the light when your laptop's cord is unplugged, and then lower the frequency of your CPUs.

I find that the 'have different plasmoids per desktop' feature is lacking polish and VERY buggy (had to log out and back in twice just so settings take place, but other times it works no problems), so I'm a bit disappointed. But Gnome doesn't even let you set different wallpapers per desktop at all... So, I can live with it.

Not to mention that KWin's nifty desktop effects are integrated with the rest of the desktop environment than Compiz is with Gnome (little things like dragging windows to different desktops with the little virtual desktop switcher, called the 'Pager' in KDE).

Anyway, just my little rant after having to use Gnome for a year or more because KDE 4.x was too unstable, and then finally being able to move back to KDE. Hopefully the change is permanent, and I'm looking forward to Karmic and the latest nVidia drivers (which should fix a few more bugs for me).

I may be bringing this up after a long time... Sorry about that.

Just my $0.02.

handy
October 12th, 2009, 04:41 PM
I don't really like KDE; Gnome was simpler for a beginner at Linux imho, Xfce is lighter & faster than both of the others, but for quite some time I have been using Arch/Openbox/xfce4-panel which looks just like Xfce (at least the way I set up Xfce) but has the speed of Openbox.

When using Openbox (or any other window manager) if you choose to use xfce4-session, then your system will become as slow as Xfce.

There are other alternative session managers which apparently don't impede the system, but I don't worry about using one, as really I don't need a session manager.

hoppipolla
October 13th, 2009, 05:06 AM
I hate to reopen a three-year-old thread, but I wanted to warn you about XFCE.
Last year, I ran Xubuntu, and it worked wonderfully on the live CD. So I decided to install it on another partition. Later, I decided to delete it. PROBLEM: It wanted to delete the SECOND partition (Xubuntu), but it messed up disk utility and deleted the FIRST one. YAY! All my iTunes, Pictures, Programs (that I payed for), etc.

So be careful with XFCE.

On the other hand, Gnome is ultra functional, and very stable, but ugly.
KDE is awesome and looks really nice. It's functional, and I love the way that the widgets work on my desktop.

So a suggestion, try KDE, and specifically, Kubuntu. I love it, and it DIDN'T DELETE MY HARD DRIVE.

Good luck!

2 x $0.01 = quintus314

Aww good stuff dude! KDE fans seem few and far between at times :)

I mean I do see some of the arguments people level against it, but it's a wonderfully progressive, attractive, modern and ambitious desktop ^_^

handy
October 13th, 2009, 12:15 PM
@quintus314: The problem you experienced with the removal of Xubuntu had absolutely nothing to do with Xfce.

You really should do more research before you start spreading such FUD about anything...

Your post is verging on the type of rubbish that starts flame wars; I thought of giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that your post was made out of ignorance rather than malicious intent.

Though when I read that it is a 3 year old experience, it makes me more strongly suspect that you are just another troll.

hoppipolla
October 14th, 2009, 12:00 AM
I'm back on KDE now finally and I absolutely adore it! Still has a few rough edges, but it's probably the most beautiful and featured desktop I have ever used :)