I'm stunned how good KDE is.

[The Cog]

Every release, I give Kubuntu a quick (very quick) spin before putting Ubuntu on. This time, I'm definitely sticking with Kubuntu. At the start of KDE4, it was very rough round the edges, but it has been getting steadily better. This time round, KDE feels really slick to me. I don't want to go back to Gnome, and I can't even wait for 9.10 to be released. I'm going full time on beta 1 (with frequent backups just in case).

I just wanted to tell everyone how impressed I am. For those who haven't looked at kubuntu recently, I would suggest that this release is a good time to try it out.

[Kow]

KDE is a great environment but it is much more resource intensive than GNOME, which for some is the turn away (for me it is.) Right now, I'm running lucid in virtualbox on old hardware and KDE moves at a snail's pace.

[sgage]

I prefer Gnome myself. It's just a matter of taste. I have tried KDE many, many times over the years. I just don't seem to think the way the KDE developers do. I've been trying KDE 4 regularly since it was first released. I will read some glowing review of how slick and polished it is, so I install it, vow to really give it a chance, and just never really warm up to it.

I'll stick with Gnome - like I said, just a matter of taste. I'm glad there are these options.

[cascade9]

I have to agree on 'KDE 4 is gettings better', excet I was never fond of Kubuntu. It always seemed more buggy than KDE on some of the other distros.

That being said, I've been playing with KDE in debian sid (currently KDE 4.3.4 I think) and its very good. On my (fairly lowly) dual core its running like a dream. Good enough that I'm thinking of using it full time for this machine, but I'm sticking with Xfce for my older machines (KDE 4 on a pentium 3/866 is painful, Xfce runs very well).

[AlanR8]

It's really good to hear something POSITIVE about Kubuntu for once!

I used it for the first two and half years of my Linux life and thoroughly enjoyed it. I still have it installed on a desktop at home and it works well but has not been fully updated for a while now.

I switched to Ubuntu about eight months ago because I was having some local area network issues and I found Ubuntu more user friendly in this area.

Must give it a further spin as my main desktop. Not bothered about stability as I use Gmail and all my important files are on Dropbox so I can upgrade and break systems to my heart's content! Have been on Lucid since Alpha 2 and it just works.

[ankspo71]

I tried it out for a few days too. I think Lucid Kubuntu has come a long way and it is starting to run alot better than previous releases. I just can't get used to the settings menu, and all of the different configurations and folders for themes... Otherwise I like it alot. Oh one other thing, and I can't use my nautilus scripts either...;)

[HoboJ]

I too have played around with kubuntu 10.04 quite a bit lately. I love how it looks but can't help but feel frustrated while using it. It just doesn't feel as polished and user friendly as ubuntu does.

[Owen.C93]

I find the look of kde tacky. I still prefer to use gnome with auto hide panels and docky for window management.

I think I will give KDE another chance before 10.04 is released.

[23meg]

Moved to CC.

[TheNessus]

KDE is a great environment but it is much more resource intensive than GNOME, which for some is the turn away (for me it is.) Right now, I'm running lucid in virtualbox on old hardware and KDE moves at a snail's pace.

People always say that, but I find it to be untrue. It takes as much memory as Gnome does, (300mb give or take) and runs smoothly for me in every aspect. It wasn't always so, I give you that.

[Lensman]

I prefer Gnome myself. It's just a matter of taste. I have tried KDE many, many times over the years. I just don't seem to think the way the KDE developers do. I've been trying KDE 4 regularly since it was first released. I will read some glowing review of how slick and polished it is, so I install it, vow to really give it a chance, and just never really warm up to it.

I'll stick with Gnome - like I said, just a matter of taste. I'm glad there are these options.

I must agree. I too have tried KDE many times and while it looks pretty, I just can't 'own' the GUI. I applaud those who like KDE and 'think' KDE, but for this old codger, Gnome does the job.

[kevin2849]

I try KDE every six months or so and I feel it has gotten better and better. The newer 4.whatever is much better than it started out. I played with opensuse for a couple of months and found their version very polished. I always fall back to Gnome as I feel it is a simpler environment for me and I am more familiar with configuring it to my taste.

Ubuntu really has become my mainstay in computing and I am at the point I only keep a current windows version in virtualBox for the rare occasion I want a windows only program (I'm looking at you Garmin!) Ubuntu/ Kubuntu- its all good.

[cguy]

KDE 4.4 is very impressive. So impressive that I switched from Gnome and started reporting bugs for it.
It's stunning how smooth everything works with all the animations, transparencies etc.
(as a side note, Windows 7 crawls on a computer twice as powerful as my KDE box.)

And the ram usage... with 2GB installed I don't give a damn! :D


Overall, it's a real joy to use and to see how active the development is.

[aaaantoine]

I'm using it on Arch and I like it. In fact, if not for KDE, I'd probably have switched back to Ubuntu by now.

[seenthelite]

Every release, I give Kubuntu a quick (very quick) spin before putting Ubuntu on. This time, I'm definitely sticking with Kubuntu. At the start of KDE4, it was very rough round the edges, but it has been getting steadily better. This time round, KDE feels really slick to me. I don't want to go back to Gnome, and I can't even wait for 9.10 to be released. I'm going full time on beta 1 (with frequent backups just in case).

I just wanted to tell everyone how impressed I am. For those who haven't looked at kubuntu recently, I would suggest that this release is a good time to try it out.

I installed Kubuntu 10.04 Beta 1 yesterday on one of my laptops and I agree this is a very good OS, on my box it is very fast, I like the way it looks and the visual effects are great.
I have Ubuntu 10.04 on another Laptop and will keep Kubuntu on this one. I have been testing and everything works no bugs. (the buttons are on the right as well, this will please some)

[Shining Arcanine]

Every release, I give Kubuntu a quick (very quick) spin before putting Ubuntu on. This time, I'm definitely sticking with Kubuntu. At the start of KDE4, it was very rough round the edges, but it has been getting steadily better. This time round, KDE feels really slick to me. I don't want to go back to Gnome, and I can't even wait for 9.10 to be released. I'm going full time on beta 1 (with frequent backups just in case).

I just wanted to tell everyone how impressed I am. For those who haven't looked at kubuntu recently, I would suggest that this release is a good time to try it out.

What do you mean by 9.10? I thought that was released last year.



KDE is a great environment but it is much more resource intensive than GNOME, which for some is the turn away (for me it is.) Right now, I'm running lucid in virtualbox on old hardware and KDE moves at a snail's pace.People always say that, but I find it to be untrue. It takes as much memory as Gnome does, (300mb give or take) and runs smoothly for me in every aspect. It wasn't always so, I give you that.

I have KDE running on Gentoo Linux and it only uses about 193MB of RAM at boot with konsole open. How resource hungry it is depends on whether or not nepomuk and strigi are running in the background. I do not have them installed, so they cannot waste resources.

I am curious whether disabling them would bring down your system's memory usage.

[TheNessus]

What do you mean by 9.10? I thought that was released last year.



I have KDE running on Gentoo Linux and it only uses about 193MB of RAM at boot with konsole open. How resource hungry it is depends on whether or not nepomuk and strigi are running in the background. I do not have them installed, so they cannot waste resources.

I am curious whether disabling them would bring down your system's memory usage.

I don't have them either. What makes my system be around 300mb usually or higher like 500 right now? no real idea, other than browser and stuff. Well it is Kubuntu, it's bloatware. But awesome bloatware. Maybe one day i'll get around installing Arch or gent.

http://d.imagehost.org/t/0621/4_9.jpg (http://d.imagehost.org/view/0621/4_9)

what say you

[samjh]

You have lots of chrome processes running. In that screenshot, I can see 168.1MB used by various chrome processes.

[TheNessus]

You have lots of chrome processes running. In that screenshot, I can see 168.1MB used by various chrome processes.
Yeah, many open tabs; regardless, on start up it's around 250-300. It grows to 350 as time moves on, goes overboard with a browser and few other apps. the difference between Aracine's 193mg and my 250-300 is the bloatware bit. But again, this isn't a major issue. Even with Vbox running whooping it to 1000mb, still got enough to spare without having to worry about anything. No, it won't be wise to hog it on a netbook, but its swell. Gnome isn't far off memory-wise anyway.

[hoppipolla]

KDE man totally. KDE.. is da shizzle!


Hi forummmm!!! ^_^ (first post in about 4 months lol)

[koleoptero]

People always say that, but I find it to be untrue. It takes as much memory as Gnome does, (300mb give or take) and runs smoothly for me in every aspect. It wasn't always so, I give you that.

I found the default kubuntu install would run perfectly with my 1gb ram for a while but after several days without reboot it had swapped about 300mbyte of stuff. The ram was full of cached things. It was funny seeing amarok take up 10mbyte ram in htop LOL. I can't really say it had some terrible impact in performance, but in gnome ubuntu I never had such a problem.

Then again I'm more familiar with gnome and I remove much of the stuff ubuntu has running by default. My current setup uses only around 150mbyte ram at startup.

But KDE is much more beautiful in general than gnome at the moment, and has some amazing apps (gwenview, amarok, k3b to name a few). The only thing that bothers me is that some apps I'm used to using are not blending very well (firefox, openoffice, etc)

[koleoptero]

KDE man totally. KDE.. is da shizzle!


Hi forummmm!!! ^_^ (first post in about 4 months lol)

And I was wondering today where have you been! We need some positive energy here. Welcome back :D

[hoppipolla]

And I was wondering today where have you been! We need some positive energy here. Welcome back :D

hehe! helloooo! ^_^


has anything much changed? :)

[koleoptero]

hehe! helloooo! ^_^


has anything much changed? :)

Not really. :)

[samjh]

Yeah, many open tabs; regardless, on start up it's around 250-300. It grows to 350 as time moves on, goes overboard with a browser and few other apps. the difference between Aracine's 193mg and my 250-300 is the bloatware bit. But again, this isn't a major issue. Even with Vbox running whooping it to 1000mb, still got enough to spare without having to worry about anything. No, it won't be wise to hog it on a netbook, but its swell. Gnome isn't far off memory-wise anyway.

I think it's just the nature of Ubuntu. My current Lucid installation with Gnome is using up 563.8MB of memory, running only Firefox (one tab open) and Synaptic. No Compiz. By contrast, my Arch installation with Gnome averages around 190-250MB, with several Firefox tabs opened.

[hoppipolla]

Not really. :)

haha no it never does! :)

I love it though!

[RichardLinx]

Trust hoppipolla to come back in a KDE 4 praise thread. Welcome back BTW.


.... ^_^

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

I refuse to try KDE this time. Every new version, I give it a spin, enticed by the pretty thumbnails online. Then I decide that not only do I prefer the way that Gnome operates, I prefer the way it that looks. I will not be enticed this time KDE!

[RichardLinx]

I refuse to try KDE this time. Every new version, I give it a spin, enticed by the pretty thumbnails online. Then I decide that not only do I prefer the way that Gnome operates, I prefer the way it that looks. I will not be enticed this time KDE!

At least not until KDE 4.5 is released. ;)

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

At least not until KDE 4.5 is released. ;)
So what if I went to the website to check out 4.4? That doesn't mean anything!!! :P

[swoll1980]

KDE is a great environment but it is much more resource intensive than GNOME, which for some is the turn away (for me it is.) Right now, I'm running lucid in virtualbox on old hardware and KDE moves at a snail's pace.

Your running it in a VM on old hardware, and it's sluggish? :-k

[Zlatan]

is knetworkmanager still buggy, will it connect my lappy through wifi and modem to internet?
will konqueror work with gmail properly?
is koffice ok with ms office filetypes already?

3 things I need from KDE to use it, none of them worked so far:)

[mips]

your running it in a vm on old hardware, and it's sluggish? :-k

:biggrin:

[-grubby]

KDE 4 is a huge improvement over KDE 3, and I love Konsole, Kate, and some other KDE 4 applications. Additionally the default theme is so nice looking I don't see any reason to change it at all.

[inobe]

the desktop will benefit well from an nvidia 8xxx series video card but does great with a 6xxx series.

there are bug fixes in nvidia's driver specific to kde !

[iRiUX]

KDE is a great environment but it is much more resource intensive than GNOME, which for some is the turn away (for me it is.) Right now, I'm running lucid in virtualbox on old hardware and KDE moves at a snail's pace.

You should check the difference in performance yourself instead of repeating what others say. I have checked for myself that without any changes the two use the same amount. I don't even have SWAP memory on my Kubuntu setup. Also running any operating system in VM requires a whole lot more PC power to run it.

I've also noticed that the performance of Kubuntu with greatly tied with how good your videocard is. In other words, your videocard matters more than your RAM or CPU in KDE.

Its like expecting windows 7 effects to work on an Intel graphics card.

[Eisenwinter]

I don't want to go back to Gnome, and I can't even wait for 9.10 to be released.
Ubuntu 9.10 was released about 5 months ago...

[samjh]

is knetworkmanager still buggy, will it connect my lappy through wifi and modem to internet?
will konqueror work with gmail properly?
is koffice ok with ms office filetypes already?

3 things I need from KDE to use it, none of them worked so far:)

knetworkmanager has been fixed upstream as of February. In fact, it actually did work for a lot of people before, but not for others.

Konqueror not working with Gmail's standard interface isn't a problem with Konqueror itself. It's a problem at Google's end. See this link (http://tombuntu.com/index.php/2008/01/16/set-up-konqueror-4-to-work-with-gmail/). If Konqueror doesn't work, you can always use Firefox, Rekonq, etc.

KOffice? Who uses that?! Just use OpenOffice.org! It's not like GnomeOffice has great MS support!

[Zlatan]

knetworkmanager has been fixed upstream as of February. In fact, it actually did work for a lot of people before, but not for others.

Konqueror not working with Gmail's standard interface isn't a problem with Konqueror itself. It's a problem at Google's end. See this link (http://tombuntu.com/index.php/2008/01/16/set-up-konqueror-4-to-work-with-gmail/). If Konqueror doesn't work, you can always use Firefox, Rekonq, etc.

KOffice? Who uses that?! Just use OpenOffice.org! It's not like GnomeOffice has great MS support!

i will check knetworkmanager in kubuntu lucid beta1

i don't care who's the problem- konqueror or google. it does not work. ok if workaround helps

koffice is a nice suite and i would like to use it in kubuntu.

overall there's no point to move to kubuntu and to use non-kde or non-kubuntu apps. i have pretty good defaults in ubuntu

[samjh]

I posted a link to a work-around for the Konqueror-Gmail problem in my previous post.

As for non-KDE apps, do you use non-Gnome apps in Ubuntu? ;) Many of the apps in Ubuntu/Gnome are not Gnome apps, including OpenOffice and Firefox.

[hoppipolla]

Trust hoppipolla to come back in a KDE 4 praise thread. Welcome back BTW.


.... ^_^

Thanks man! *resists urge to do happy face!!*

[Zlatan]

I posted a link to a work-around for the Konqueror-Gmail problem in my previous post.

As for non-KDE apps, do you use non-Gnome apps in Ubuntu? ;) Many of the apps in Ubuntu/Gnome are not Gnome apps, including OpenOffice and Firefox.

thanks for the link mate, will definitely try it.

and yes, i tend to use gnome apps in ubuntu and kde apps in kubuntu. when it comes to FF and OOo, they're already in ubuntu, i don't need kubuntu for them. get my point, mate?:)
and yes, i use epiphany and gnome office where i can in ubuntu.

[ndefontenay]

Is there all the micro blogging features of Ubuntu in Kubuntu?
how are things like gwibber integreated in KDE?

[Zlatan]

Is there all the micro blogging features of Ubuntu in Kubuntu?
how are things like gwibber integreated in KDE?

there was some plasmoid for microblogging i think

[TheNessus]

Is there all the micro blogging features of Ubuntu in Kubuntu?
how are things like gwibber integreated in KDE?

for some reason, could not get gwibber working on kde 4.4

[Roasted]

People always say that, but I find it to be untrue. It takes as much memory as Gnome does, (300mb give or take) and runs smoothly for me in every aspect. It wasn't always so, I give you that.

I actually installed Ubuntu and Kubuntu, side by side, on the same computer, just to test out what kind of power each of them required.

I was using Kubuntu 9.10 (KDE 4.3) and Ubuntu 9.10. The difference in resource usage between them was so small, it wasn't even worth arguing. I'm talking KDE used a matter of a few megabytes more RAM than Ubuntu did on fresh boot. Processor intensive I saw no difference.

The days of "KDE is slow and bloated" are over.

I WILL say that KDE is a little more resource intensive on the graphic memory, though. But if you have a graphics card that was manufactured in the last few years, it's really hard to run into that snag.

The one thing that irritates me about KDE is the sound issues I have, which is ironic since KDE doesn't use pulse audio, yet Ubuntu does. I guess Ubuntu got their pulse audio mess cleaned up? I installed Kubuntu on about 4 different computers, and each one had different sound issues. Each one required specific and odd tweaks to get it to work. That's where the unpolished feeling came in to play for Kubuntu, considering Ubuntu on all of those machines just... worked.

Maybe 10.04 will be better. I'll give Kubuntu a shot as I always do, but I've given it enough time (ran Kubuntu 9.10 for about 6 months) to say that I don't think it's my cup of tea to run full time. But hey, much respect to that dev team. It sure looks good!

[Zlatan]

yeah, tried kubuntu lucid beta 1 recently- what a beauty queen:)
my current debian lenny gnome on a lappy looks like a good ol' stable guy from a workshop now:)
kubuntu lucid beta 1:
knetwork manager- ok
gmail workaround in konqueror- ok
koffice- will try, not a big deal if does not work with ms office files as there's open office instalation anyway

anyways, i still have a problem with our company's crappy crm on a php framework- it is terribly shown on a konqueror (ok on firefox and epiphany). gmail-type workaround (changing browser id) does not help...

[Psumi]

I'm stunned how heavy KDE is.

[koleoptero]

I'm stunned how heavy KDE is.

Here we go again...

[iRiUX]

After a lot of tweaking on my laptop :D, I was forced to install a new desktop, then I thought I don't feel like changing settings right now (to my preferences) and then in a month again upgrade to the latest Kubuntu. So I upgraded to Kubuntu 10.04 yesterday... omg KDE 4.4.1 rocks! Its so polished... I like it a lot. My laptop looks hawt(er) now!! :D

[cascade9]

I'm stunned how heavy KDE is.

Blame poxy intel graphics, not KDE.

KDE 4.3 runs really well, even from a liveCD on the 'its not exacatly new' machine being used by my flatmate- AMD +2200, 1GB DDR400 (@ 266) nVidia 6600GT.

[mcooke1]

I'm stunned how heavy KDE is.

What do you mean exactly ? Please.

[GeneralZod]

Blame poxy intel graphics, not KDE.


Since most DE's run just fine on Intel chipsets, I don't see why he shouldn't claim that KDE is "heavy" for not running smoothly on them. Assuming the drivers are fine, of course.

[iRiUX]

Since most DE's run just fine on Intel chipsets, I don't see why he shouldn't claim that KDE is "heavy" for not running smoothly on them. Assuming the drivers are fine, of course.

Have you tried Windows 7 aero on an intel? Those cards are not for this age man, its good for someone who likes to disable everything that looks good on a DE.

[Psumi]

What do you mean exactly ? Please.

Explain to me how KDE will run super fast on my machine:

IBM T41 - 512 MB RAM (496 Usable) - 128 MB Graphics (Which freezes when using compiz) - 40 GB Harddrive that ureadahead cripples.

Right now, Lucid Openbox with lxpanel and firefox open takes up a little over 300 MB of RAM. Can KDE take less than 160 MB with Karmic and not eat up my CPU?

[iRiUX]

Explain to me how KDE will run super fast on my machine:

IBM T41 - 512 MB RAM (496 Usable) - 128 MB Graphics (Which freezes when using compiz) - 40 GB Harddrive that ureadahead cripples.

Right now, Lucid Openbox with lxpanel and firefox open takes up a little over 300 MB of RAM. Can KDE take less than 160 MB with Karmic and not eat up my CPU?
You should be working in terminal with those specs. KDE is definitely not for you.

[Psumi]

You should be working in terminal with those specs.

Give me a terminal browser that supports flash then.

as well as a multi-client IM program for terminal that can login to MSN and YIM.

As well as a music player for terminal that can repeat one music track over and over forever.

[mcooke1]

Explain to me how KDE will run super fast on my machine:

IBM T41 - 512 MB RAM (496 Usable) - 128 MB Graphics (Which freezes when using compiz) - 40 GB Harddrive that ureadahead cripples.

Right now, Lucid Openbox with lxpanel and firefox open takes up a little over 300 MB of RAM. Can KDE take less than 160 MB with Karmic and not eat up my CPU?


Thank you, now I know what you mean. I thought you may have been comparing Kubuntu 10.04 and Ubuntu 10.04 Beta 1's.

[samjh]

Obviously this thread has no relevance to his/her situation, because none of the mainstream desktop environments (Gnome, KDE, Mac OS 10.6, and Windows 7) will run "super fast" on that sort of machine.

Having said that, on Arch, I can run default KDE with Firefox while using less than 300MB of RAM (but not on Karmic). But 160MB? No.

[iRiUX]

Have you guys noticed how well Firefox now looks in the new KDE? I don't use it as primary browser, but I have it installed. It finally looks as if its part of the DE. :D

[cascade9]

Since most DE's run just fine on Intel chipsets, I don't see why he shouldn't claim that KDE is "heavy" for not running smoothly on them. Assuming the drivers are fine, of course.

KDE is graphics dependant. Most DEs arent anywhere near as picky with video cards.


You should be working in terminal with those specs. KDE is definitely not for you.

Thats going a bit far...

The T41 has a P4M 1.4-1.6. I've got a P3 866 with 384MB, using the i810 graphic so 376MB usable, and it runs well with Xfce (not xubuntu, its much slower).

The XP +2200 that runs KD 4.3 well is pretty much the same speed as the 1.6M.


Explain to me how KDE will run super fast on my machine:

IBM T41 - 512 MB RAM (496 Usable) - 128 MB Graphics (Which freezes when using compiz) - 40 GB Harddrive that ureadahead cripples.

Right now, Lucid Openbox with lxpanel and firefox open takes up a little over 300 MB of RAM. Can KDE take less than 160 MB with Karmic and not eat up my CPU?

Correction to what I said before- 'blame poxy ATI 7500 graphics'. Freezing when using compiz is a sign that your video card is lackluster, at best.

Its not just about RAM- if it was, you would be fine. Of course, more would always help, but in KDE 4.3 I use a shade over 300MB with way to many tabs open, and 165-170MB at idle.

[koleoptero]

You should be working in terminal with those specs. KDE is definitely not for you.

Terminal? I can run gnome on that and make it fly.

[veko]

How well KDE works with Gnome nowadays? I tested it couple of months ago (possibly KDE 4.3) by installing KDE desktop on Ubuntu, but when I went to back to Gnome, fonts were all messed up. I managed to solve that by fixing $HOME/.fonts.conf, though.

As many others have said above, I find KDE nice but somehow I don't feel it as "my thing". I might test 4.4 anyway, if it won't mess up anything.

[me?]

i think i like gnome better.

[arnab_das]

from what i gather, gnome 3 as of now has no compiz cabality (or the other way round). and frankly, without compiz ubuntu can get a bit boring (but thats just me!). :)

i guess i'll have to shift to KDE then. thats why i have started familiarizing myself with kubuntu 9.10 via the live CD.

[kaldor]

I love KDE, I was using KDE4 as my main desktop for a couple of months. I liked it, but it just wasn't there for me yet. I'd have to work around certain bugs often, and I couldn't depend on it.

I'll be back on GNOME for a while yet. But once I see KDE4 become truly mature and stable, I may make the switch.

[macogw]

And the ram usage... with 2GB installed I don't give a damn! :D


I upgraded my laptop from 2GiB to 4GiB because...I think it would've been Karmic alphas... were just thrashing my disk and swapping sooo much (about 2GiB of swap would be in use). Now with Lucid, sometimes 1.5GiB of swap (on top of the 4GiB I now have) are in use :-/ I really don't know how people use Kubuntu on 1GiB or less memory. Well, I know Jonathan Riddell (a Kubuntu dev) does it, but he doesn't use Kontact or Quassel (or Konversation) or Kopete or... basically doesn't run any of the stuff that people tend to have running as just regular old background tasks (mail, IM/chat).


Is there all the micro blogging features of Ubuntu in Kubuntu?
how are things like gwibber integreated in KDE?
IME, Choqok is more featureful than Gwibber.

[RiceMonster]

You should be working in terminal with those specs. KDE is definitely not for you.

Well first off, who are you to tell someone what is right for them? Secondly, that's more than enough to run a graphical environment. Xfce should run nicely.

[iRiUX]

I upgraded my laptop from 2GiB to 4GiB because...I think it would've been Karmic alphas... were just thrashing my disk and swapping sooo much (about 2GiB of swap would be in use). Now with Lucid, sometimes 1.5GiB of swap (on top of the 4GiB I now have) are in use :-/ I really don't know how people use Kubuntu on 1GiB or less memory. Well, I know Jonathan Riddell (a Kubuntu dev) does it, but he doesn't use Kontact or Quassel (or Konversation) or Kopete or... basically doesn't run any of the stuff that people tend to have running as just regular old background tasks (mail, IM/chat).


IME, Choqok is more featureful than Gwibber.
I think (Im sure actually) that you're experiencing a memory leak of some kind. I have 4 GB RAM and I never have a swap partition. My memory usage has never been above 800 mb, currently its at 517 MB in Kubuntu 10.04.

[macogw]

I think (Im sure actually) that you're experiencing a memory leak of some kind. I have 4 GB RAM and I never have a swap partition. My memory usage has never been above 800 mb, currently its at 517 MB in Kubuntu 10.04.

I know that about 700-800MB are going to Firefox. Another 150 or so go to Kontact. Another 150 to Quassel. Another 150 to Choqok. About 10MB to terminals. And then I'm not sure about the other 2GB except that maybe they're from all the shared libraries?

There was a memory leak last summer with every time a digit advanced on the clock, a new pixmap would be allocated but the old one wouldn't be freed, so if you had seconds visible it would leak pretty quickly, but that was fixed.

[iRiUX]

I know that about 700-800MB are going to Firefox. Another 150 or so go to Kontact. Another 150 to Quassel. Another 150 to Choqok. About 10MB to terminals. And then I'm not sure about the other 2GB except that maybe they're from all the shared libraries?

There was a memory leak last summer with every time a digit advanced on the clock, a new pixmap would be allocated but the old one wouldn't be freed, so if you had seconds visible it would leak pretty quickly, but that was fixed.
Firefox in its current state is just one big bug everywhere its installed. Currently:

Chrome: 62.5 MB (3 tabs)
Yakuake: 6.2 MB (Im sure you know it, it always runs in BG).

I don't use Kmail, but when I start it, it uses 13.6 MB and Quassel 11.4 MB. I don't think they will reach 150 MB even after 6 hours of running.

The difference in mem usage of standard aps could be due to the fact that I have 4.4.1 installed... however, your firefox is just using way too much... its crazy... Also, maybe you should consider using yakuake instead of terminals, it rocks...

[macogw]

Firefox has about 115 tabs open, so it's excused ;-)

I'm not sure how well Yakuake would work with my window manager though (I use Xmonad not Kwin). Plus, I *really* like Terminator because it has split panes (Konsole does too, but Konsole does it in a really annoying way).

I wonder if deleting some old email would speed up Kontact. It's IMAP, but it's DIMAP, so it only has to sync changes since it has a cache.

[iRiUX]

I like yakuake because it stays out of my desktop until I want it to be there, then I just hit F12. and it pops up. Its also splittable by the way, in any way you like.

http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/Yakuake-split_1.png

[macogw]

Oooh it splits? I may have to try it then, to see if it works ok with Xmonad.

[MisfitI38]

Yaquake is a resource hog. Especially if you are a Gnome-centric user, try Guake (http://guake.org/) instead. :)

[Roasted]

Figured I'd toss this in here, just to kind of add how KDE vs Gnome is such a strict matter of opinion:

When I set up my parent's PC, I set up XP Pro and Kubuntu 9.10 in dual boot. My mom is the heavy computer user out of the two, and she got used to Kubuntu, but I kept seeing her go back to Windows.

After my cousin got Ubuntu and kept suggesting it to her, she opted to let me install Ubuntu over Kubuntu. So I did.

The only things I did once I fired it up was I added the PPA for Docky2 and installed it, and nuked the bottom panel. Then I switched the theme to one of the other included themes (Dust Sand, which is actually very nice and a new favorite of mine).

Now she won't stop using it, and even wants me to install Ubuntu on her laptop tomorrow.

I love Kubuntu, I really do. But comparing the two is such a matter of opinion it's unreal. I no longer use it due to weird bugs I ran into (even with KDE 4.3) but I have a soft spot for KDE and its devoted team of developers.

I look forward to see what Gnome pulls out of the hat. It seems like a lot is brewing up in the Gnome 3.0 and Gnome Shell department...

[macogw]

Yaquake is a resource hog. Especially if you are a Gnome-centric user, try Guake (http://guake.org/) instead. :)
Er...it's a KDE thread. What makes you think we'll be GNOME-centric? :P

Though for this in GNOME I used to use Tilda, not Guake. I still never really found dropdown menus very convenient though. My first workspace *always* has a terminal open. The time it takes Tilda to drop down (animated... blah) is longer than the time it takes to change workspaces.

[bobin]

Umm can i use KDE with nautilus and firefox. I don't like Konquerer

[magmon]

I mean to offence to KDE fans when I say this, but, KDE is far too similar to windows for my taste. If I wanted to use something like windows, I would just use windows. I like using gnome because it's something different than the usual PC user's desktop.

[Minipalmer]

This week was my first Kubuntu install ever. I reinstalled several times while working on my wireless, and when I really settled down, I couldn't get into it. My problems:

- Several inconsistent programs. Firefox, really? Konquerer looks nice, but it doesn't have Gmail, Facebook chat, or Hulu support (just the ones I noticed)
- My broadcom wireless is not compatile with KDE's network manager (which I didn't realize until a forum member told me after 3 days of fighting with it)
- Amarok didn't have some features I wanted, and the only way to get the new one was to install the backports PPA which:
- Crashed my plasma-desktop twice and forced a reinstall by installing the backport PPA to get KDE 4.4.
- My jockey would die and crash my system every now and again.

KDE looks gorgeous, and I'm a big eye candy guy (which is why I tried it in the first place). I wish Gnome could make panels as pretty as theirs. But most of my favorite programs are written for Gnome, and Ubuntu seems to have a lot more put into it.

I've heard the OpenSuse KDE is very nice though.

[TheNessus]

I mean to offence to KDE fans when I say this, but, KDE is far too similar to windows for my taste. If I wanted to use something like windows, I would just use windows. I like using gnome because it's something different than the usual PC user's desktop.

You are aware, of course, that you can make your KDE to look like anything you want, yes?

How is it like windows? it has a windows-like menu? Well, I don't use the menu, I removed it, I only use alt-f2, much nicer without a menu and much more intuitive. Panel at bottom like in Windows? I put mine up, like a Mac. etc, etc.

Really, I do not get your comment.

[iRiUX]

Umm can i use KDE with nautilus and firefox. I don't like Konquerer
You can tailor any DE/Linux OS to use whatever you like. Personally I use Chrome browser... Firefox doesn't come installed, but you can install it... I don't understand why you would use nautilus over dolphin though... lol sounds weird to me.

[iRiUX]

I mean to offence to KDE fans when I say this, but, KDE is far too similar to windows for my taste. If I wanted to use something like windows, I would just use windows. I like using gnome because it's something different than the usual PC user's desktop.
What makes KDE great is that the developers are not conservative old farts who think any feature/thing that is used on other desktops (DEs/OS') should not be on their DE either. If its good, then it should be added regardless. The GNOME team however is very conservative and by being like this they're pulling the rope around their neck tighter and tighter with each release. However, with that said, have you noticed that practically all GNOME users change their desktop to look like that of OSX? ;)

[MisfitI38]

Er...it's a KDE thread. What makes you think we'll be GNOME-centric? :P


Ha! Hmmm..good point.

[praveesh]

I hear some people saying that kUbuntu is better it lucid . How is it better ? Is kpackagekit working well ? Good themes ? How is it different from karmic ?

[Roasted]

You can tailor any DE/Linux OS to use whatever you like. Personally I use Chrome browser... Firefox doesn't come installed, but you can install it... I don't understand why you would use nautilus over dolphin though... lol sounds weird to me.

I like how Nautilus keeps bluetooth and network devices mounted as a device, whereas Dolphin doesn't, which often requires constant re-authentication to that share, which is a pain if you access multiple network shares where you have different credentials on each one... since KDE can only permanently store 1 set of login credentials for network shares.

I don't understand why you would want to use Dolphin over Nautilus. THAT sounds weird to me... :P :P

[mips]

I don't understand why you would want to use Dolphin over Nautilus. THAT sounds weird to me... :P :P

I honestly dont know how to answer this without being sarcastic.

[iRiUX]

I hear some people saying that kUbuntu is better it lucid . How is it better ? Is kpackagekit working well ? Good themes ? How is it different from karmic ?

Don't know about kpackagekit, I always use yakuake for all my updating. As for the difference, heh... I guess you have to try and see for yourself how much better 4.4.1 is from 4.3.5. Its very very polished. However, there are still some issues on Kubuntu lucid... e.g. no boot screen, lots of errors you see during boot, etc.

[humphreybc]

I tried Kubuntu today properly for the first time. 10.04 beta1.

I have to say I found it completely awful, It's as confusing as hell, inconsistent and I honestly didn't know what the hell I was doing at all.

[macogw]

I like how Nautilus keeps bluetooth and network devices mounted as a device, whereas Dolphin doesn't, which often requires constant re-authentication to that share, which is a pain if you access multiple network shares where you have different credentials on each one... since KDE can only permanently store 1 set of login credentials for network shares.

I don't understand why you would want to use Dolphin over Nautilus. THAT sounds weird to me... :P :P
Well if you don't have network shares to worry about... then you're just left with Dolphin's nicer UI (yay split pane! can't drag stuff from tab to tab easily in Nautilus)

[Roasted]

I honestly dont know how to answer this without being sarcastic.

I honestly am surprised anybody would think like that...

[inobe]

I tried Kubuntu today properly for the first time. 10.04 beta1.

I have to say I found it completely awful, It's as confusing as hell, inconsistent and I honestly didn't know what the hell I was doing at all.

use what works for you, if the kde environment isn't your cup of tea use something easier and less confusing :)

[iRiUX]

I tried Kubuntu today properly for the first time. 10.04 beta1.

I have to say I found it completely awful, It's as confusing as hell, inconsistent and I honestly didn't know what the hell I was doing at all.
Are you very conservative? It can't be because of being old (if thats your photo), so it must be because of being too conservative (having difficulty adjusting to anything different).

Things that in GNOME can only be found in its registry or are hidden away in config files all have an option in KDE, so i guess it can be confusing for many to see so many options for so many things and not just a few buttons to click on. In that sense GNOME is easier. You should stick to GNOME.

[Jackelope]

Someday I hope to switch to KDE. Maybe when the ATI drivers get their act together....just can't stand the graphical glitches as it is now.

[Roasted]

Someday I hope to switch to KDE. Maybe when the ATI drivers get their act together....just can't stand the graphical glitches as it is now.

Or the audio glitches...

[iRiUX]

Audio glitches? You sure you're not talking about Ubuntu? lol...

[KdotJ]

I'm gonna give it a spin, after reading this thread. I played around with KDE a few times when I used to use Fedora, I did like it, but I never really 'got into it' and stuck there. Gnome is just more my thing. However, KDE is being downloaded by synaptic as we speak...

[Roasted]

Audio glitches? You sure you're not talking about Ubuntu? lol...

That's what I thought too. I installed Ubuntu on all of my machines here and went to town, no audio issues whatsoever. When I got into KDE more and decided I wanted to use that as primary, I converted them all over to Kubuntu. Oh my gosh... problems galore. One box had one issue which required ABC solution. Another had a different issue which required XYZ solution.

It just got old. I left Windows for a reason, to avoid the fuss. I had no fuss with Ubuntu.

Don't get me wrong, much <3 to the Kubuntu team. But even with 4.3, I just had issues that were enough to push me back to Ubuntu. But hey, that's just my experience and my 2 cents. Your milage may vary.

[themarker0]

I just tested mandriva KDE. Loved it. might tiple boot it.

[Roasted]

I just tested mandriva KDE. Loved it. might tiple boot it.

Mandriva is VERY nice. It was definitely the top KDE distro I tried.

[iRiUX]

That's what I thought too. I installed Ubuntu on all of my machines here and went to town, no audio issues whatsoever. When I got into KDE more and decided I wanted to use that as primary, I converted them all over to Kubuntu. Oh my gosh... problems galore. One box had one issue which required ABC solution. Another had a different issue which required XYZ solution.

It just got old. I left Windows for a reason, to avoid the fuss. I had no fuss with Ubuntu.

Don't get me wrong, much <3 to the Kubuntu team. But even with 4.3, I just had issues that were enough to push me back to Ubuntu. But hey, that's just my experience and my 2 cents. Your milage may vary.

Regardless of what PC I install Ubuntu on, it sounds as if my speakers are torn apart quite often. This is a well known problem because of Ubuntu. In fact, this forum is riddled with complaints about this one issue.

[neu5eeCh]

My broadcom wireless is not compatile with KDE's network manager...

That's interesting. Where is more info on this? I tried PCDSD last week, which only runs KDE, and couldn't get wireless to work. What was *really* strange was that the Network Mangers could "see" the wireless modem (signal strength, etc...), but I couldn't get it to connect? I couldn't decide whether it was a PCBSD or a KDE issue, but didn't stick around long enough to find out. (Using Broadcom by the way...)

[ELD]

I am going to DL and try it now i think.

Just a note for the Original Poster that you put the wrong version in 9.10 is out, 10.04 is the version you are talking about.

[iRiUX]

That's interesting. Where is more info on this? I tried PCDSD last week, which only runs KDE, and couldn't get wireless to work. What was *really* strange was that the Network Mangers could "see" the wireless modem (signal strength, etc...), but I couldn't get it to connect? I couldn't decide whether it was a PCBSD or a KDE issue, but didn't stick around long enough to find out. (Using Broadcom by the way...)
Umm, I'm not sure about this. While the KDE network manager does have its issues, the very purpose of these fronts ends (which is what they are), is to only make your settings of the actual network manager settings in a simple way. The actual program which regulates your connections is the same for all DEs. In fact, some people don't even use these network manager front ends.

[Ric_NYC]

I like the quality of sound output in KDE. It gives me the impression that it is more "robust" than Gnome.

I also like the way the icons arrange themselves, instead of getting on top of each other like happens in Gnome.


Last but not least... :) I like all the transparency effects.

[Roasted]

Regardless of what PC I install Ubuntu on, it sounds as if my speakers are torn apart quite often. This is a well known problem because of Ubuntu. In fact, this forum is riddled with complaints about this one issue.

Like I said, your mileage may vary. I had Ubuntu on about 5 machines at home and upwards of 20 at work. When I started to flop over to Kubuntu 9.10, I ran into issues.

I had audio issues in previous releases of Ubuntu. I think 8.10 I had some decent issues. Beginning with 9.04 I think things mellowed out, and nothing more came about with 9.10. So I really don't know what to comment with in regards to the fact that you seem to have issues galore with Ubuntu, yet I don't, but hey - I guess that's life?

[Roasted]

I like the quality of sound output in KDE. It gives me the impression that it is more "robust" than Gnome.

I also like the way the icons arrange themselves, instead of getting on top of each other like happens in Gnome.


Last but not least... :) I like all the transparency effects.

Have you directly compared Gnome and KDE on the same machine? I dual booted Kubuntu and Ubuntu (both 9.10) on the same rig on separate partitions, and I didn't notice anything. I noticed more of a difference with Windows Vista versus Ubuntu/Kubuntu, but there wasn't any difference I could detect with Ubuntu vs Kubuntu. Just curious if you tried it on the SAME machine, because unless you're using identical hardware for comparisons, it's hard to really say KDE or Gnome has better (or worse) sound quality.

[Ric_NYC]

Have you directly compared Gnome and KDE on the same machine? I dual booted Kubuntu and Ubuntu (both 9.10) on the same rig on separate partitions, and I didn't notice anything. I noticed more of a difference with Windows Vista versus Ubuntu/Kubuntu, but there wasn't any difference I could detect with Ubuntu vs Kubuntu. Just curious if you tried it on the SAME machine, because unless you're using identical hardware for comparisons, it's hard to really say KDE or Gnome has better (or worse) sound quality.


Yes. I have both in the same machine.
I notice a difference in sound quality when I play songs, Youtube videos.

[Chemical Imbalance]

I recently switched to KDE 4.4 from Gnome, and I love it!
I can't go back to Gnome after using this.

I never really "got" KDE4 before this iteration either.
However, I loved KDE3.

KDE has always been a more resource intensive DM than Gnome in my experience though.

[nerdy_kid]

the desktop will benefit well from an nvidia 8xxx series video card but does great with a 6xxx series.

there are bug fixes in nvidia's driver specific to kde !

this.

ran into a horrible bug in NVIDIA that came about when kwin shutoff compositing. Crashes the pc on resume (as in resume from standby)
I have a 8600 and _need_ the beta nvidia drivers to get smoothness out of kwin at all; the older drivers really lag for some reason.

also could to sound quality be that GNOME uses pulse and KDE doesn't? could be wrong here, but just a thought. Pulse has been giving me pain lately so i killed it :)

[cascade9]

ran into a horrible bug in NVIDIA that came about when kwin shutoff compositing. Crashes the pc on resume (as in resume from standby)
I have a 8600 and _need_ the beta nvidia drivers to get smoothness out of kwin at all; the older drivers really lag for some reason.

Odd. I'm runing KDE 4.3 on a 8600GT and its fine with compositing (kwin) and the 190 drivers. I dont have much turned on, maybe thats the difference. Or myabe its because I'm not running kubuntu. (I dont know what distro you are running KDE on, its a guess) ;)

[nerdy_kid]

Odd. I'm runing KDE 4.3 on a 8600GT and its fine with compositing (kwin) and the 190 drivers. I dont have much turned on, maybe thats the difference. Or myabe its because I'm not running kubuntu. (I dont know what distro you are running KDE on, its a guess) ;)

with compositing, no issue. turn off compositing and suspend the laptop....on resume: crash. (sometimes it doesnt crash but mostly it does.) I am running kubuntu... they (kwin devs) told me it was a nvidia bug, so i imaging distro hopping wont help much :( it doesnt bug me that much anyway.

[phibxr]

I will surely give Kubuntu 10.04 a spin when the release hits. KDE 4.4 SC seems to be a wonderful release from the KDE-teams.

As for now though, I'm sticking with the Ubuntu 10.04 beta 1 until further notice.

[mutantstargoat]

After being a huge fan and heavy user of KDE since 1.1, I'm mostly just stunned that I still hate KDE4 after four point releases. I keep hearing how it's getting better and I'm just not seeing it. I'm pretty much done until we get KDE5.

:-({|=

[neu5eeCh]

I just wanted to tell everyone how impressed I am. For those who haven't looked at kubuntu recently, I would suggest that this release is a good time to try it out.

I just tried three different KDE distros and none of them worked for me. OpenSuse, which always gets glowing reviews, is a disaster on my *very* linux friendly laptop (on which Ubuntu already runs). The network manager failed to connect without tweaking and seems unable to remember my WPA password. The sound is horrible and needed to be tweaked by alsamixer (though still bad). I noticed that most of the rave reviews for OpenSuse and KDE are from the 3.x era?

I run OpenSuse Gnome on the family computer and it's truly a lovely desktop.

The I tried Mint KDE. The sound was lightyears ahead of OpenSuse, but I just can't warm up to the KDE menu system. I'm always having to scroll up or down to see all the software and I *really* don't care for the way one has to move back & forth, back & forth within the menu "box". I suppose, after a time, one knows where things are, but it seems like there's always more pointing and clicking in KDE than in Gnome. (The wireless worked flawlessly on Mint KDE.)

Then I tried the latest PCLOS Beta. They have mercifully dispensed with the standard KDE menu system. It resembles Gnome and, for me, was much quicker to navigate (meaning that everything is readily visible). PCLOS also seemed to have organized its configuration options in a much more intuitive and quickly accessible manner than either Mint or OpenSuse. Everything is visible (no need to scroll through subtree after subtree). Given that brief exposure, I would probably opt for PCLOS if I wanted to tool around with KDE - even though they've drastically altered it. (For the better in my opinion.)

In truth, though, I don't get what advantages KDE offers over Gnome. I was surprised, for example, that I couldn't adjust the panel's transparency the way I can in Gnome (only with a limited number of themes). After always reading about how customizable KDE is (and maybe it really is) it's not in that respect.

Everything just seems more accessible in Gnome.

[nerdy_kid]

I just tried three different KDE distros and none of them worked for me. OpenSuse, which always gets glowing reviews, is a disaster on my *very* linux friendly laptop (on which Ubuntu already runs). The network manager failed to connect without tweaking and seems unable to remember my WPA password. The sound is horrible and needed to be tweaked by alsamixer (though still bad). I noticed that most of the rave reviews for OpenSuse and KDE are from the 3.x era?

I run OpenSuse Gnome on the family computer and it's truly a lovely desktop.

The I tried Mint KDE. The sound was lightyears ahead of OpenSuse, but I just can't warm up to the KDE menu system. I'm always having to scroll up or down to see all the software and I *really* don't care for the way one has to move back & forth, back & forth within the menu "box". I suppose, after a time, one knows where things are, but it seems like there's always more pointing and clicking in KDE than in Gnome. (The wireless worked flawlessly on Mint KDE.)

Then I tried the latest PCLOS Beta. They have mercifully dispensed with the standard KDE menu system. It resembles Gnome and, for me, was much quicker to navigate (meaning that everything is readily visible). PCLOS also seemed to have organized its configuration options in a much more intuitive and quickly accessible manner than either Mint or OpenSuse. Everything is visible (no need to scroll through subtree after subtree). Given that brief exposure, I would probably opt for PCLOS if I wanted to tool around with KDE - even though they've drastically altered it. (For the better in my opinion.)

In truth, though, I don't get what advantages KDE offers over Gnome. I was surprised, for example, that I couldn't adjust the panel's transparency the way I can in Gnome (only with a limited number of themes). After always reading about how customizable KDE is (and maybe it really is) it's not in that respect.

Everything just seems more accessible in Gnome.

i definitely agree with you about the menu system; i dont even use the menu and almost exclusively use krunner, i remapped it to <alt><space> so its easy to get at. GNOME cant even begin to approach KDE's plasma widget system. Plasma really makes it for me :) And once the kde devs get nepomuk/akondi down solid they'll be slaughter for desktop search.
Each to his own :) I love smooth looking animations and eye candy and KDE offers it lol

[neu5eeCh]

i definitely agree with you about the menu system; i dont even use the menu and almost exclusively use krunner, i remapped it to <alt><space> so its easy to get at. GNOME cant even begin to approach KDE's plasma widget system. Plasma really makes it for me :) And once the kde devs get nepomuk/akondi down solid they'll be slaughter for desktop search.
Each to his own :) I love smooth looking animations and eye candy and KDE offers it lol

But how useful are the widgets really? I'm not picking a fight. Just curious. Do you have a screenshot?

I've found that unless I have lots of on-screen real estate, all my widgets are uselessly buried. I've tried keeping them on top of windows, but that just gets way too busy for my taste. I personally haven't found KDE's widgets to be all that more "useful" than screenlets in gnome (though KDE may be a little more polished). There's also Google's offerings, but I think they're trapped in Google's desktop "bar".

Krunner is nice too, but is it really an advantage to simply pinning ones favorite apps to the panel? Just one click. (My main complaint with KDE - everything seems to require more keystrokes, scrolling, mousing, etc...) I suppose KRunner it might be useful if you're a power user who regularly uses a slew of programs that won't fit on a panel. I don't. But there's always gnome-do.

It really does come down to eye-candy, I suppose. ;)

Maybe, if someday, I get one of those screens the size of a barn, I'll get all operatic about KDE.

[TheNessus]

But how useful are the widgets really? I'm not picking a fight. Just curious. Do you have a screenshot?

I've found that unless I have lots of on-screen real estate, all my widgets are uselessly buried. I've tried keeping them on top of windows, but that just gets way too busy for my taste. I personally haven't found KDE's widgets to be all that more "useful" than screenlets in gnome (though KDE may be a little more polished). There's also Google's offerings, but I think they're trapped in Google's desktop "bar".

Krunner is nice too, but is it really an advantage to simply pinning ones favorite apps to the panel? Just one click. (My main complaint with KDE - everything seems to require more keystrokes, scrolling, mousing, etc...) I suppose KRunner it might be useful if you're a power user who regularly uses a slew of programs that won't fit on a panel. I don't. But there's always gnome-do.

It really does come down to eye-candy, I suppose. ;)

Maybe, if someday, I get one of those screens the size of a barn, I'll get all operatic about KDE.
I use widgets (plasmoids in KDE) the following way:
I make each workspace be an independent desktop. i.e. plasmoids on one workspace are not duplicated on another. With a keystroke, I navigate to another workspace. this way I have different plasmoids for different needs, making workspaces really efficient.

[bobtestact]

After a year of using the Nautilus file browser, I just tried Dolphin (from KDE) for the first time this week, and I was stunned at how much easier and more intuitive it is than Nautilus.

When I transitioned from Windows to Ubuntu, the hardest thing for me, by far, was being continually thwarted by Nautilus. A random example of its many limitations is this:

[1] Suppose that you have a directory (in List-view) that contains a large list of (only) subdirectories. Now try to drag-and-drop a file in to that directory WITHOUT putting it into one of the subdirectories. It's simply not possible.

[2] Now (again in List-view) try to select a group of files using left-click-and-drag. Again, not possible.

[3] Want to unselect the current selection(s)? In a modern file browser, you would simply click the mouse on the background area to unselect all; but in Nautilus (in List-view) there is absolutely no background area available in folders with a large number of files.

For me, there is hope now with Dolphin. But for every person who discovers Dolphin there are 100s of others who will keep struggling with Nautilus, assuming that it must be the best of breed because it was selected as the default.