Disadvantages of lightweight variants?

[scubscub]

Is there any reason [B]not[B] to run lightweight variants like xubuntu and lubuntu on a relatively fast computer? I have a fairly new computer which could easily run heavier distros, but I like the way LXDE and Xfce desktops, and I was wondering if there are any inherent limitations, e.g. in hardware, graphics, etc. to using these.

[magical2hobo]

The only real disadvantage is that xfce and lxde aren't as fully featured or have as much eye candy as some of the heavier DE's like KDE or GNOME. But if your hardware is newer and fairly capable the difference in performance gain from lightweight variants isn't very noticeable. It really just comes down to your personal preference and which one you feel most comfortable using, and if you really wanted to you can have GNOME, KDE, xfce, lxde, enlightenment, etc, etc all installed on the same machine running Ubuntu.

[nothingspecial]

Is there any reason [B]not[B] to run lightweight variants like xubuntu and lubuntu on a relatively fast computer? I have a fairly new computer which could easily run heavier distros, but I like the way LXDE and Xfce desktops, and I was wondering if there are any inherent limitations, e.g. in hardware, graphics, etc. to using these.

There is no reason to not use Lubuntu or Xubuntu if you prefer them.

The underlying stuff is the same.

[Myrddin Emrys]

Xubuntu and Lubuntu comes with a series of lightweight alternatives to the standard applications (e.g. Abiword and Gnumeric rather than Libreoffice), which might not be what you want. Sometimes it's easier to just install vanilla Ubuntu and change the desktop later - e.g. the 'xfce4' meta-package will give you an Xfce desktop on a standard Ubuntu installation without Xubuntu styling or the alternative office software. Any distribution in the Ubuntu family is just a starting point, of course, and there's no reason not to start with whichever variant you prefer and add whatever you need when it's required.