looking for a new distro to try

[Cew27]

right i have used ubuntu for a while now and would like to try out some other options
but first i have a few questions
what are the differences between kde, gnome and xfce ??
i am using gnome at the moment
i was looking at arch linux and linux mint but what are the differences between these two distributions compared to ubuntu ??
many thanks for reading

[NightwishFan]

XFCE is lighter/faster than both Gnome or KDE. I prefer Gnome over KDE. The differences are mostly that KDE runs faster with KDE based applications although it is possible to use Gnome ones.

Also KDE is more configurable but less simple, in my opinion.

[Cew27]

thanks
any more opinions on distro's and desktops

[NightwishFan]

I tried Suse, Fedora 8, and Gentoo.

Although I was impressed with each, I always found myself returning to Ubuntu. I have not tried Mint, however I hear good things about it.

Suse was not to my taste with performance. Fedora was clean and professional, but less usable. Gentoo was advanced, however installing and updating are slow as it has to compile.

If you wish for a new desktop enviroment only. You can install KDE or XFCE4 from synaptic, and choose either one in the "sessions" at the login screen.

[Cew27]

so if i wanted to change to kde of xfce i wouldnt have ro reinstall the operating system i could just download it ans add it to ubuntu ?

[NightwishFan]

Yes, Install it with synaptic.

For example search XFCE4. Then check and apply. Log out when it installs. Choose sessions. You should see GNOME and XFCE. Choose XFCE and login like normal.

[Cew27]

just tried xfce, didnt like it to much

[Cew27]

can anyone tell me the difference between
mythbuntu and the ubuntu studio compaired to normal ubuntu

[NightwishFan]

Mythbuntu is made for home theater. Ubuntu Studio is designed around media production.

[Cew27]

why what extras does it have

[ComputerHermit]

I aways wanted to try Dream Linux

[smartboyathome]

XFCE is lighter/faster than both Gnome or KDE. I prefer Gnome over KDE. The differences are mostly that KDE runs faster with KDE based applications although it is possible to use Gnome ones.

Also KDE is more configurable but less simple, in my opinion.

KDE is not faster imo. It is arguably just as slow as GNOME, or slower at times. Also, you may want to look into E17 from this guide (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=546746). A couple distros that use E17 and are based on Ubuntu are OzOS (only a 64 bit disk, but 32 bit can be installed from the repos on a ubuntu minimal base), and Maryan Linux (technically based on Linux Mint, which is based on Ubuntu; it will have a release soon).

Also, I like SAM Linux a lot. Especially SAM Linux 2008 RC1. You should give it a try as well, but I would advise against dual booting it and Ubuntu, as it will give you trouble.

[NightwishFan]

It is just the way the distro is on the cd. Nothing is "extra" you can get the programs in Ubuntu.

[Rumor]

i was looking at arch linux and linux mint but what are the differences between these two distributions compared to ubuntu ??
many thanks for reading

I can't speak to Mint as I've not used it, but I can tell you some of the differences between Arch and Ubuntu.

Ubuntu allows you to boot from the CD into a LiveCD environment. Arch does not. You'll have to install Arch to experience it. There are many install guides. I very strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the beginners guide: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide

Arch does not come with a default desktop environment or window manager. You will have to install one of your choosing.

Arch is much lighter than Ubuntu in its default installation, and even with comparable programs, daemons and modules running Arch is faster and more responsive than Ubuntu.

Arch does not have a set schedule for new releases. The installation ISO is a snapshot of the repositories at the time of release. Arch uses a rolling release type of platform meaning that you install it once and never have to reinstall again. One command keeps your system up to date. All the installed packages, your kernel, everything is managed through the package manager and can be as bleeding edge as you choose.

The package manager, pacman is (IMO) superior to apt-get.

Arch includes tools for building your own packages if there is a piece of software you use that is not available in the repositories or in the community maintained Arch Users Repository (AUR). This allows you to very easily contribute back to Arch, encouraging Arch to be very much a community supported distro.

Arch has a lot going for it. There is no such thing as a "perfect" distro, but for me Arch comes very close.

[kenono]

Before using Ubuntu, I used the VirtualBox for windows to test and have a play with various Linux distros to see which I liked.
Ubuntu's works well with my computer and was my favorite so that's why I run it.
Opensuse was another that I liked, but you can get VirtualBox for Linux too I understand, maybe having a go on that with various distros before you properly install one is a good idea to see which you like?

[Crooksey]

Im not being harsh or elitest here, but if you thought you had to install a whole new Operating System, just to get KDE or XFCE, then you arent ready for a distro such as Arch yet.

All the diffrent ubuntu flavours that are released are just tweaked versions of ubuntu, you can make your ubuntu exactly the same, these distro's just offer out of the box diffrences.

Please dont waste your time installing dozens of diffrent distros, do some resarch before hand, otherwise you just waste your time. Choose a distro over its package manager and init system, not by screenshots, as any linux distro can look like another with diffrent themes and wallpapers.