Gnome vs KDE : For beginners, without the flame war!

[the8thstar]

When I first started with Ubuntu two years ago, I didn't even realize that there were several Window Managers. I used Gnome right away and gradually got used to it. I found it to be simple and consistent overall.

Later I gave several tries to KDE in Ubuntu, PC-BSD and OpenSUSE, but I couldn't stick to that. There were too many options and buttons everywhere. The new KDE desktop seems very oriented on using desklets and quite frankly I'm not a fan of that at all.

I prefer a lean GUI. This is just MY opinion.

[NightFalcon90909]

I started with GNOME, switched to KDE, and am now back on GNOME.

KDE:

• Much prettier.
• Comes with a Twitter gadget/widget/whatever-it's-called. It's very nice to have twitter on the desktop, but the widget itself is terribly designed.
• Did I mention, KDE is pretty?
• More resources needed
• More difficult than GNOME to theme.

GNOME:

• Lightweight
• Simpler
• Contrary to popular opinion, I found GNOME to be more windows-like than KDE. If you move the top bar down to the bottom, you essentially have a "start" button with "Applications."
• Much easier to theme.
• Boring-er graphics, though those can be changed.

Thus, I say new users should start with GNOME, and then when they get used to Linux, they can switch to KDE if they so choose.

[Ben Page]

Gnome is like XP, and KDE like Vista. I like KDE better, for its looks, I like Dolphin, its a bit more handy windows explorer than nautilus, but KDE definitely is not practical at all! It uses almost all resources, and I can not browse files more than an hour before I get a fatal crash message. Kwins effects just plain suck, and compiz is not well integrated in KDE. Menu looks and feels awful and slow, theming of KDE is equal to 0...Like I said, if you want to actually work on your comp, and be productive - go gnome, if you like to look at your desktop, and admire its beauty - go KDE, KDE 3.x is a good alternative for KDE4, because it actually works, but this one is ugly, also there is a good alternative in Linux Arch, called the KDEmod (moded KDE especially for Arch, set up for speed - but Arch is Linux distro made to be a CLI distro).
I have tried almost all mainstream distros, and I can say that Ubuntu with its default gnome will be distro No1 Linux distro in every sence.
And if you think that gnome is ugly, just check out this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1047409 , ok it doesn't have plasmids, but gnome can also have widgets like KDE (don't know why people always say that KDEs pro \are widgets?)

[Hallvor]

I used to use Gnome, but switched to KDE. I like KDE applications better, and they run much better in KDE than in Gnome, so that was part of why I switched. I use KDE 3.5.10 and have never tried KDE 4.x. And I don`t think I`ll use it for quite some time. But it is getting along nicely.

KDE, pros:
-has better applications
-uses less memory (yes, really)
-is more flexible

KDE, cons:
-the menu
-bad if you don`t like blue or the letter k

Gnome, pros:
-looks better
-has more applications
-simple and straightforward

Gnome, cons:
-uses more memory
-inflexible, less options

[NightFalcon90909]

KDE, cons:
-bad if you don`t like blue or the letter k

Haha, I'd forgotten about that! Almost my main gripe. There are 'K's everywhere!

[Sockerdrickan]

I freakin hate the Ks

[SomeGuyDude]

To me, here's what it comes down to:

GNOME pro:
- VERY unobtrusive. Nothing's particularly busy and simply laid out.
- The majority of applications are written with the GTK toolkit, if you like visual unity.
- Customizable, but not to any crazy extent.

GNOME con:
- It's different from Windows. Can't get away from that.
- Can't customize it that much.
- The simplicity of it can be disarming.

KDE pro:
- Looks similar to Windows both in color scheme and the panel/menu layout.
- You can customize it a lot.
- Konqueror's spiffy.

KDE con:
- Buggy as of 4, but 4.2 may be better.
- Everything's part of the K-Suite which can get annoying when everything in the menu is Ksomething.
- The "kitchen sink" approach means most applications are insanely busy visually. Can be off-putting.

Beginnerwinner: GNOME

Reason being it IS a simple system. There's a bit of a learning curve, but things are logically laid out, require little searching, and a new user won't be overloaded. Dolphin suffers the same problem as Konqueror in that there are, what, three or four frames by default?

Remember, when we're talking a beginner, what we're not talking is what it CAN look like, but what it does by default. For a new user, GNOME's relative simplicity will make the transition easier.

[X40nick]

I want to give my opinion, since I have tried both.

Ubuntu, which is powered by Gnome is the best - simply because it is fast, stable, easy, and very efficient.

Kubuntu, which is powered by KDE4, is awful - again simply because it is trying to be a better Windows, by bundling everything we can get on Vista on KDE. Plus a fancy interface, well this causes slow, unresponsive systems, with frequent crashes.

KDE have tried to be even better than Windows - but they have tried at the wrong end.

Gnome is better than Windows and KDE because it simply works.

For the record, Mac OS X tries to do everything - and starts to appear very baby-like and boring.

I think KDE needs to scrap these domination ideas, and move back to simple, stable, and efficient computing.

If it was between KDE3 and Gnome - then that would be interesting!

Nick

[kaldor]

I much prefer Gnome to KDE (both 3.5 and 4.x) due to it's sleek default look and simplicity. I used to use KDE for about a month or 2, but I got annoyed at how bloated everything was. I was never able to get used to KDE. Too much trouble to go through all the menus and such looking for what you want.

Gnome is best for the beginner I think. It is different than Windows (Just get used to change!), simple to customize, and has a simple layout.

[BLTicklemonster]

I came from windows when I started using Ubuntu, of course, and started with gnome because that's the usual setup. Shortly thereafter I tried kubuntu, and was less than thrilled. My reason being that in gnome, you can see what you're doing. Applications, Places, System; click them, you see what's what. In kde, I would click something, look, wonder, explore, then close it and boot back to gnome. In my opinion, it's needlessly complicated, and over rated. I came to linux for freedom and simplicity. I get freedom with both, but the simplicity with gnome makes it my preferred choice. Hope that is as simple and straight forward and answer as you would like to see.