PDA

View Full Version : xfce vs. gnome



RChickenMan
February 26th, 2007, 07:33 PM
I have traditionally been a gnome user, however I recently decided to give xfce a shot. I have always heard it is supposed to be a more minimal, less resource-intensive DE than gnome and kde. I am not sure whether I have experienced any performance gains, as I never really found gnome to be particularly sluggish. However, what I did notice is that there is really no reduction in functionality when compared to gnome. Also, the user interface is almost identical, and I would even say it looks a bit more "polished" in xfce. At this point it looks like I'll be making a switch. Of course, it's not like I absolutely have to commit to "switching" to one of them like one does with an operating system.

Can anyone else here relate to what I'm talking about? It seems to me that if gnome doesn't necessarily have anything to offer over xfce, and xfce is lighter on system resources, xfce would simply be a superior DE and therefor should be equally as popular (note this is not intended to be flame bait... read on!). I would like to hear from those of you who have had a similar experience to me, and also some of you who could inform me of what gnome has to offer over xfce that is worth the supposedly heavier resource usage. (it sounds as if gnome is foreign to me, but like i said, I've been a solid gnome user up until now. And yes, Linux is my only OS).

Either way, this is sparking a curiosity about desktop environments and I think I am going to play around a bit with what's out there. There's so many combinations of window managers, desktop environments, etc. that the right combination for me is out there somewhere and I'll probably never actually find it!

doobit
February 26th, 2007, 07:37 PM
I really like XFce and It does work noticeably faster on my under-1 GHZ machines. As you play around with it you will find that it's a more transparent (to customization) desktop than Gnome. I like that because it makes it easy for me to customize. One problem is that it is also more modular than Gnome so you may need to open more menus to get the customization you want (i.e. user interface settings, desktop settings, window manager settings, panel settings).

Koori23
February 26th, 2007, 07:43 PM
I like XFCE fine, My only problem with it is it's theme-ability is limited. For example, I can get Alphacube GTK controls in XFCE, but cannot use the Alphacube Window borders.

I know it's a dumb reason but, it's my reason.

fuscia
February 26th, 2007, 07:45 PM
i'm a big fan of scrollable desktops and right-click menus, so that gives an advantage to xfce.

doobit
February 26th, 2007, 08:16 PM
i'm a big fan of scrollable desktops and right-click menus, so that gives an advantage to xfce.

I agree!
After using Fluxbox, Enlightenment and Xfce, I keep trying to shut down my WinXP machine with a right click. Then I remember where I am...

reacocard
February 26th, 2007, 08:18 PM
I like XFCE fine, My only problem with it is it's theme-ability is limited. For example, I can get Alphacube GTK controls in XFCE, but cannot use the Alphacube Window borders.

I know it's a dumb reason but, it's my reason.

Actually, you can. Just use metacity (or beryl+heliodor) instead of xfwm4. Of course, that negates some of the lightness of xfce, but its an option if you really want it.

IYY
February 26th, 2007, 08:29 PM
I've traditionally used Gnome, KDE, IceWM and Fluxbox, but recently I see XFCE rapidly improving and becoming a solid desktop environment.

happy-and-lost
February 26th, 2007, 08:31 PM
Maybe someone can enlighten me here.

My laptop (1.73ghzPM, 1gbRAM) runs and boots Xu and U in the same time, so there's no advantage to using Xfce on the resource front.

However... my desktop (3ghzP4HT, 700ishmbRAM) runs/boots Xu much MUCH (About half the time) faster than U. So I use half and half. I love them both.

fuscia
February 26th, 2007, 08:43 PM
I agree!
After using Fluxbox, Enlightenment and Xfce, I keep trying to shut down my WinXP machine with a right click. Then I remember where I am...

if you kept right-clicking on your xp desktop, i bet it would shutdown eventually.

hizaguchi
February 26th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Neither is really faster for me either. I prefer Gnome though because I think it looks nicer and I really like Nautilus. Plus, I've never found a really good icon theme for XFCE... not one that I like anyhow.

doobit
February 26th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Neither is really faster for me either. I prefer Gnome though because I think it looks nicer and I really like Nautilus. Plus, I've never found a really good icon theme for XFCE... not one that I like anyhow.

Xfce will use the same icon themes as Gnome.

zaratustra
February 26th, 2007, 09:44 PM
xfce is much better, faster, less dependencies... And it could be even nicer, but it isn't imortant anyway

Crooksey
February 26th, 2007, 09:52 PM
I always have been and probably always will be a gnome user, why?

1) I don't need my desktop to be configured for hours
2) Gnome has never crashed on me, always found it stable, fast and reliable.
3) When I have big college assignments to work on, I don't want to be navigating my DE to find things, I just want them running.

Allot of people dislike Gnome, but I love it.

Prefer it over KDE for the speed, prefer it over XFCE for usability.

If however I am on a programming assignment, Ill just run Openbox and 7 or 8 urxvt sessions.

FyreBrand
February 26th, 2007, 10:22 PM
I love xfce. I've started using it at work on older machines AMD 900's with 256MB RAM and older PIII laptops. It's fast, clean, configurable, and, for me, represents a perfect combination of minimalism and usability. So far it's been really stable.

Gnome on the other hand has been sluggish compared to xfce or kde on machines I installed. The boss wanted to test all three (even though the idea of DE's and WM's kind of confuses him).

The boss is a hardcore windows user this is some of his feedback on the xfce and gnome:
1. Liked Ubuntu's default color scheme. He liked that it was different colors from Windows.
2. Thought Gnome was sluggish in comparison to xfce and kde
3. Didn't get the mouse thing in xfce.
4. Likes the ease of configuratioin in xfce and it's interface.
5. Likes the xfce panels.

obocho
February 26th, 2007, 11:08 PM
hi guys,

i just wanted to say that xfce might be good if you would have time (and patience) to install all small things (app.'s, icons, etc.) you need...

However, after you installed all those things, you have again Gnome (or maybe KDE) on your computer : )

at least according to my own experiences...

(sorry for my eng.)

Tuna-Fish
February 26th, 2007, 11:32 PM
well, not really. the difference is that unlike gnome i can still customize my xfce :)

I tried xfce for one day and instantly switched, it is pretty much exactly what I want from a DE. my only gripe is that it's not very well programmed. you can't notice it if you reboot often 8like every day or so), but both the menus and the desktop leak memory like there's no tomorrow. After 4 days or so they are both around 100 MB and desperately need to be killed.

This on both 4.4.0 and the one that originally shipped with xubuntu.

hizaguchi
February 27th, 2007, 01:26 AM
Xfce will use the same icon themes as Gnome.

Is that new? I didn't think it would before. I still prefer Gnome's look (especially the panels), but that's nice for XFCE anyhow.

antenna
February 27th, 2007, 02:29 AM
I have been very impressed with Xfce lately, 4.4 is a major improvement over 4.2, everything seems incredibly well thought out to me and the number of options for everything seems perfect.

I've got to have scrollable desktops and some of the features Xfwm provides that are lacking in Metacity and i'll take Thunar over Nautilus any day (though smb support would be nice one day, maybe.) I would also say Xfce is now more polished and consistent than Gnome overall. Of course, it's also faster.

graabein
February 27th, 2007, 10:48 AM
I've been a GNOME user for the last couple of years and I just recently tried Xfce. It is snappier on older hardware, it looks pretty good plus I like the right click menus. So Xfce is now on my old laptop and I'll install Xubuntu over the previous version of Ubuntu on my parents machine next time I visit them.


xfce is much better, faster, less dependencies... And it could be even nicer, but it isn't imortant anyway

Come on entertain us with your views and ideas for a nicer Xfce :)


I tried xfce for one day and instantly switched, it is pretty much exactly what I want from a DE. my only gripe is that it's not very well programmed. you can't notice it if you reboot often (like every day or so), but both the menus and the desktop leak memory like there's no tomorrow. After 4 days or so they are both around 100 MB and desperately need to be killed.

This on both 4.4.0 and the one that originally shipped with xubuntu.

Do you know if the Xfce devs are aware (http://bugzilla.xfce.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=memory+leak) of this? They should be informed if they're not... Strange that such a large bug is not taken care of...

Quillz
February 27th, 2007, 11:00 AM
I prefer GNOME.

rai4shu2
February 27th, 2007, 01:10 PM
XFCE is making rapid improvements lately. I'm definitely giving it a shot once Feisty is stable in April.

shrimphead
February 27th, 2007, 02:02 PM
i'm a big fan of scrollable desktops and right-click menus, so that gives an advantage to xfce.

^This. Desktop menu's rule. Which is why I Like fluxbox :)

shrimphead
February 27th, 2007, 02:05 PM
4. Likes the ease of configuratioin in xfce and it's interface.


This is probably my *only* criticism of Xfce, I love how in gnome you can just drag an app from the menu to a panel to get a shortcut to that, wheras in Xfce you have to create the shortcut manually, giving it the path, the path to the icon etc etc.

If anyone knows of an app or something that I've missed that gives you greater drag and drop in Xfce that would be awesome

rai4shu2
February 27th, 2007, 03:34 PM
I use AppFinder and the add a launcher dialog. You can drag from AppFinder to the launcher (if it's in the AppFinder).

shrimphead
February 27th, 2007, 03:53 PM
I use AppFinder and the add a launcher dialog. You can drag from AppFinder to the launcher (if it's in the AppFinder).

Thanks, I'll give that a go :)

doobit
February 27th, 2007, 04:00 PM
This is probably my *only* criticism of Xfce, I love how in gnome you can just drag an app from the menu to a panel to get a shortcut to that, wheras in Xfce you have to create the shortcut manually, giving it the path, the path to the icon etc etc.

If anyone knows of an app or something that I've missed that gives you greater drag and drop in Xfce that would be awesome

There are people who are using Engage in Xfce. I haven't tried it yet though.

http://www.enlightenment.org/Applications/Engage/

SunnyRabbiera
February 27th, 2007, 04:43 PM
XFCE is pretty nice, but it lacks the "sleekness" you can get in gnome and in KDE, plus I have always had issues with screensavers in it

Dragonbite
February 27th, 2007, 05:21 PM
They are both good but I feel like Xfce is a little more responsive on my 500MHz machine though I haven't gotten the transparency working right.

One setup I keep going back to is panel-less. I bind the Main Menu key to the windows key on my keyboard and the desktop list menu to my list key on the keyboard and remove all of the panels from the screen. Sometimes I would only have the 'lil icon box to pop-up when programs are opened.

Sunflower1970
February 27th, 2007, 07:31 PM
I've tried XFCE a few different times on my PII 400 Mhz computer, and I really don't see a difference in response time between Gnome or XFCE (lol both slow, but usable) I also found I was frustrated trying to customize the taskbars, and I also never have found a theme I've liked for it.

I keep trying it out from time to time just to keep on getting used to it, but I find I keep going back to Gnome or IceWM. (and even Enlightenment from time to time)

manmower
February 27th, 2007, 07:41 PM
Xfce and Gnome are on par IMHO.

izanbardprince
February 27th, 2007, 08:40 PM
It really REALLY depends on your hardware.

If you have gobs of RAM and one of these new dual core 64-bit processors and a beefy video card, nothing you throw at it will put much of a dent in performance.

Xubuntu would be noticeably faster on systems with 512 megs of RAM or less and a 1-2 Ghz processor.


I'm dual booting Windows 98 SE and Xubuntu on an old HP system I hacked together out of spare parts.

550 Mhz AMD K6-2
320 megs of RAM
40 gig hard disk

I also managed to scrap up a Geforce 5200 PCI video card.

DirtDawg
February 27th, 2007, 09:45 PM
After using both in Dapper, in the end I like Gnome better. Little things, like the ability to change panel colors, and neat-o scroll bars make all the difference to me.

Of course, on my little imac g3, Xfce is the bomb. People who don't think there's any kind of speed difference between the two may be using Gnome applications in Xfce. In which case, no, there would be no significant speed increase. It's the combination of Xfce and GTK apps where the benefits become real apparent.

jotagab
February 27th, 2007, 09:54 PM
It really REALLY depends on your hardware.

If you have gobs of RAM and one of these new dual core 64-bit processors and a beefy video card, nothing you throw at it will put much of a dent in performance.

Xubuntu would be noticeably faster on systems with 512 megs of RAM or less and a 1-2 Ghz processor.


I'm dual booting Windows 98 SE and Xubuntu on an old HP system I hacked together out of spare parts.

550 Mhz AMD K6-2
320 megs of RAM
40 gig hard disk

I also managed to scrap up a Geforce 5200 PCI video card.

Hum, you're sure about the 550MHz? I thought that the K6-2 maxed out at 450MHz...
Anyway, one small note: check the maximum amount of cacheable memory on that motherboard, because if it is 256MB (quite usual in those days...) you're probably better off with only 256MB!

graabein
February 27th, 2007, 11:35 PM
People who don't think there's any kind of speed difference between the two may be using Gnome applications in Xfce. In which case, no, there would be no significant speed increase. It's the combination of Xfce and GTK apps where the benefits become real apparent.

This might sound stupid but I'll risk it -- how does one see which apps are GNOME or not?

Another thing -- I just marked changes in Synaptic and went ahead and updated and it looks like it's installing lots of GNOME stuff even though I don't have gnome-desktop at all, just Xfce that came with Xubuntu... Hope it cleans up after itself and don't install unnecessary GNOME stuff because I'm strapped for disk space on this old heap of junk (90's laptop).

Anyone got links to stripping packages and freeing up disk space btw?

DirtDawg
February 28th, 2007, 12:22 AM
This might sound stupid but I'll risk it -- how does one see which apps are GNOME or not?

Another thing -- I just marked changes in Synaptic and went ahead and updated and it looks like it's installing lots of GNOME stuff even though I don't have gnome-desktop at all, just Xfce that came with Xubuntu... Hope it cleans up after itself and don't install unnecessary GNOME stuff because I'm strapped for disk space on this old heap of junk (90's laptop).

Anyone got links to stripping packages and freeing up disk space btw?

Nothing stupid about that. I think I've been doing this long enough to take sooper nerdy things for granted. :oops:

I'm not sure of a good way to find gtk apps. I thought there was a thread or two with lists of applications, but I'll be damned if I can find them now. What I generally do, when I need an app, is search for said app in Synaptic, then look for a gtk version.

For example, Thunderbird was way slow on my Xubuntu box, so I searched Synaptic for 'email', or something close, and found sylpheed-claws-gtk2. I tried it and it totally rocks. In other words, I look for a mention of gtk in either the name or description. Just remember, as a general rule, to always choose gtk2 over gtk if there's an option.

As far as getting rid of all your Gnome bits, try this link (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/purexfce). It might be just what you're looking for.

manmower
February 28th, 2007, 12:28 AM
This might sound stupid but I'll risk it -- how does one see which apps are GNOME or not?

Another thing -- I just marked changes in Synaptic and went ahead and updated and it looks like it's installing lots of GNOME stuff even though I don't have gnome-desktop at all, just Xfce that came with Xubuntu... Hope it cleans up after itself and don't install unnecessary GNOME stuff because I'm strapped for disk space on this old heap of junk (90's laptop).

Anyone got links to stripping packages and freeing up disk space btw?

The fact that they are sucking in a bunch of Gnome dependencies basically makes them Gnome apps. Just look through the packages' dependencies and see if they need Gnome libraries to run. Before installing, preferably. :)

You can uninstall Gnome apps and the dependencies that came with them just fine though.

lhtown
February 28th, 2007, 12:47 AM
I prefer Gnome over XFCE since it is supported much better by Ubuntu (try getting XFCE specific help on these forums).

Also, I like brown better than blue. I know it is customizable, but I am not into theming.

I am using XFCE 4.4 in Fiesty on a P4 computer, and I must say that it is really nice and noticeably faster than Gnome in Edgy. I think it is a big improvement over 4.2.

angryfirelord
February 28th, 2007, 03:58 AM
I've recently switched to XFCE because even though I have a gig of ram, it has a more snappier feel to it.

The lack of desktop icons I can live without, but the thing I dislike about it is the menu editor. The Alacarte menu editor for gnome is much better than the wimpy thing provided with xfce.

I love thunar because it's just what a file manager should be, a file manger. Much snappier than nautilus or konqueror.

Gnome still comes at a close second.

graabein
February 28th, 2007, 10:16 AM
Thanks for the replies DirtDawg and manmower. I'll take a look at that link when I get home from work.

I also found a nice page on the Xubuntu wiki for Gtk programs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/ProposedPackages

DirtDawg
February 28th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Thanks for the replies DirtDawg and manmower. I'll take a look at that link when I get home from work.

I also found a nice page on the Xubuntu wiki for Gtk programs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/ProposedPackages

Oh, great link! Thanks for that.

FyreBrand
February 28th, 2007, 09:23 PM
This is probably my *only* criticism of Xfce, I love how in gnome you can just drag an app from the menu to a panel to get a shortcut to that, wheras in Xfce you have to create the shortcut manually, giving it the path, the path to the icon etc etc.

If anyone knows of an app or something that I've missed that gives you greater drag and drop in Xfce that would be awesomeI agree that is a little clunky. I do like the drag-n-drop gnome offers or the right-click -> add application in KDE. I have to open up the menu editor copy the information over to the panel bar launcher so I can get the start up switches right.

I don't change app launchers on the panel a lot though so once I go through the initial hassle it's not really a big deal.

I noticed there are a few startup differences that I'm having to get used to that are different than gnome such as how environment settings are saved and reloaded, but eventually I'll get the hang of it. Gnome just kind of takes care of all that for you which is convenient, but I'm still having fun with xfce. Learning it's little differences has been educational.

raul_
March 4th, 2007, 03:15 PM
I switched to Xfce a couple of days ago. I tried many times, but i just didn't like it. But i spent a little time customizing it, and remembering that it wasn't supposed to be Gnome and now i'm getting rid of all my Gnome apps (Epiphany, Evolution, etc) and i'm going Xfce all the way.

I have a nice machine (amd sempron 2800+, 1gb ram) but i just like the responsiveness of xfce. Plus, my cpu spikes dropped a lot :)

EDIT: just to make a point, i don't use xfce because my computer can't handle gnome, i use xfce because i think it's better. But i also like Gnome very much (i've always used it)

Graduate
March 8th, 2007, 01:02 AM
When i was using Ubuntu, my fluxbox kept messing up and I would end up in metacity with not gnome panel. So I tried out xubuntu and it works great with openbox.

maxamillion
March 8th, 2007, 01:05 AM
I use Xfce because I like it better, but Gnome is a very close second .... there are just certain things about Gnome that I feel are a little too automated (which is by no means a bad thing, I just like control)

zubrug
March 8th, 2007, 01:29 AM
Using kde feisty at the moment, love xfce though, will switch this box back soon. Gnome is nice too though but slow (this is not so obvious as it was in 5.10) , I will most likely use kde on a new system though as I use quite a few kde app's so why not.

illu45
March 8th, 2007, 01:52 AM
I usually use Gnome (or Beryl), but I did give XFCE a try recently and I quite liked the lightweight feel of it. However, I didn't see much difference in speed between the two and by this point I'm quite used to my Gnome setup, and see little reason to switch over to XFCE. However, if I were to do an install on a new computer (especially an older one), I'd probably go with XFCE.

LookTJ
March 8th, 2007, 01:54 AM
I tried both.

They both look the same.

XFCE is faster and nice

but I still use gnome.

raublekick
March 8th, 2007, 02:07 AM
I tried both.

They both look the same.

XFCE is faster and nice

but I still use gnome.

Xubuntu and Ubuntu look the "same". XFCE's default does not look like GNOME's default.


An important thing to remember is that Xubuntu has a very modified XFCE. I rather suggest installing xfce over xubuntu-desktop, but that's just my preference.

LookTJ
March 8th, 2007, 02:22 AM
Xubuntu and Ubuntu look the "same". XFCE's default does not look like GNOME's default.


An important thing to remember is that Xubuntu has a very modified XFCE. I rather suggest installing xfce over xubuntu-desktop, but that's just my preference.

they look the same, but xubuntu is smaller.

XeroZohar
March 8th, 2007, 02:53 AM
I used blackbox and then fluxbox on my old slack box for the longest time. When I did a LFS project for an old notebook computer, I decided on using XFCE. I really liked it on there, so when I saw there was an XFCE-based Ubuntu, I jumped at the chance to use it. It hasn't disappointed me yet, and I've even managed to get it themed just like I want it. Very nice and customizable.

This probably will negate the point of my reply to this particular thread, but I've never actually used GNOME. Limited experience with KDE as well.

Dragonbite
June 22nd, 2007, 05:09 PM
I've used Xfce for a while but currently I'm using Gnome for a couple of reasons.
Customizing in Xfce can be a pain because of more screens to click through
Modifying the menu, say to take out Gnome apps (like gEdit) so you get the Xfce apps (Mousepad) showing without bloating the menu) can be a pain if you are not ready to redo the entire menu
I like Gnome's system resource monitor better (esp. the Network monitor)
I can never figure out how to make the panel backgrounds in Xfce transparent
Adding an application to a panel is a pain-in-the-@$$! I like in Gnome where you right-click on a menu item and have the options to "Add to Panel" or "Add to Desktop"

I will say, I do like some of the things about Xfce.
Since the right-mouse button pulls up the menu and the middle-button brings up the list of open windows in all desktops, the requirement on using panels is minimized and for a while I did have a desktop with NO panels (I also bind the Windows and Menu keys on the keyboard to the right- and middle-buttons of the mouse)
I like a clean desktop, so having only minimized applications show up on the desktop is kinda nice
I notice a very slight responsiveness difference (I think on older machines the difference is more noticeable than on newer/faster machines)
Looks cleaner


I may be setting up an Edubuntu thin client environment at home sometime this year and if I do I am going to keep an eye on using Xfce for the desktops instead of Gnome and see if that helps in handling multiple logons better.

addux
December 4th, 2007, 12:49 AM
Xfce: 8
Gnome: 7.5
(KDE: 7)

I've had more problems with gnome, I like Beryl a lot and as of right now I can't get them to work together well. When I was using Ubuntu, Beryl worked with gnome from anywhere between 5-50 minutes. On a whim I installed Xfce and was able to use Beryl with better performance. I RARELY have problems with Xfce/Beryl, I dare say never. Editing panels did require more steps with Xfce, but it's not bad and really only needs to be once in a while. Xfce feels more responsive and as I said before, my experience has shown it to be much more stable. Gnome has burned me too many times for reasons I don't know. Just imagine the blue screen of death, but instead of blue, you have a picture of your current screen, nothing is responsive, with the exception a few peripherals (not the Keyboard), and no logging in any default logs to help me get any clue as to what happened. The negativity aside, Gnome is great (for me preferred over KDE) and I must stress I had major problems with Beryl only, nothing else to speak of.

linfidel
December 4th, 2007, 01:18 AM
I installed xubuntu gutsy along with my ubuntu gutsy, sharing the same /home partition.

If it were not for compiz, I'd definitely use xfce over gnome. But I like compiz + gnome a lot. Not only does it look good and have some nice plugins, but keyboard shortcuts seem to work more consistently.

Can compiz be used with xubuntu? Would that be the same as ubuntu with compiz, more or less?

xubuntu definitely boots faster for me, about 3 times faster, I think. I like the fact that I can share the home directory, so I can just run either one, although there is the added overhead of keeping both updated.

-grubby
December 4th, 2007, 01:28 AM
I installed xubuntu gutsy along with my ubuntu gutsy, sharing the same /home partition.

If it were not for compiz, I'd definitely use xfce over gnome. But I like compiz + gnome a lot. Not only does it look good and have some nice plugins, but keyboard shortcuts seem to work more consistently.

Can compiz be used with xubuntu? Would that be the same as ubuntu with compiz, more or less?

xubuntu definitely boots faster for me, about 3 times faster, I think. I like the fact that I can share the home directory, so I can just run either one, although there is the added overhead of keeping both updated.

yes compiz can be used with XFCE: type
compiz --replace

Cursim
December 4th, 2007, 01:53 AM
I don't have much on the comparisonto gnome, but I know that before I installed compiz, my computer FLEW with xfce, noticably faster than KDE, which I switched from. Even with compiz it's still pretty damn snappy. I still have the XFCE panel and menus and stuff. At first I didn't like it, but once i had it set up the way I wanted, I grew to really love it, and now I won't go back.

crimesaucer
December 11th, 2007, 04:54 AM
I've used xfce4 for most my time on Linux. My first distro was xubuntu 6.0.6 and I used xubuntu all the way up to the tribe 5 Gutsy 7.10...


I used Beryl and then Compiz Fusion for most of that time, and had some very nice looking desktops using gtk themes that I wrote for the "engines-xfce" and the Emerald windows.


Then I went to Archlinux and since the new Gnome2.20 had just been released, I tried that out.


Well, the first things that I liked in my new Gnome were the panel and the menus... I also liked the sounds included, and nautilus and gedit were pretty nice.


What I hated about Gnome was that the minimize effect was lame, you couldn't drag and drop a window to the next workspace, gconf seemed very limited in possibilities, and for the first time in a year, I noticed that I used my swap file a bunch. (also missing compositing unless you use the svn...)


I also didn't like nautilus scripts compared to thunar custom actions... (I might not of given it a chance)... and I found that unless you set nautilus to a single file browser in gconf, you end up with so many windows open for no reason


Then if you add Compiz Fusion to Gnome, it really uses to many resources and get's slow when you have too many apps open at once.


So I went back to xfce4 (new xfce4.4.2) on Archlinux, and after a while, I stopped using Compiz Fusion all together and now my computer is so damn fast. And when I use the xfce4 apps like mousepad, they open instantly. So does AbiWord. Plus my Swap file never get's used now, and Swiftfox 3 is so fast!!!!!


This is xfwm4 with compositing on Archlinux:


Large View: http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-5-1.png
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-5-5.png


Large View: http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-6.png
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-6-1.png


Large View: http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-7-5.png
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-7-6.png


Large View: http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-8.png
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-8-3.png

airtonix
December 19th, 2007, 04:13 AM
for me :

gnome is slow & heavy on resources, easy to manipulate in terms of desktop customisation, and convienent for the script user with nautilus-scripts.

xfce is great as a desktop that need no real network interactions....you cant browse network shares with thunar, so you will need to use NFS shares mounted locally..

kde is faters than gnome, and about the same as xfce for me. but it blows them both out the water with configuration possibilities.

I refuse to use samab anymore due to its infereror and immature state compared to NFS or SSH.

new2*buntu
December 19th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I am currently using XFCE and I like it a lot. I used to use Gnome, but it was a bit too slow. So I tried out XFCE and so far it has been great. I like it better than Gnome and it is faster. Also, Compiz Fusion + XFCE has given me no problems, unlike the frequent crashes with it in Gnome when nothing moves but the mouse.

frito
March 5th, 2008, 10:08 PM
i am also a huge fan of Xfce. The developers seem to try to avoid function creep which makes me happy.

I find the stuff Xubuntu avoids (ie. Nautilus) makes it much faster but using Xfce also helps a bit.

I compared two fresh installs of Xubuntu and Ubuntu and Xubuntu was noticably fater on my 2Ghz machine

julian67
March 5th, 2008, 10:21 PM
On a really decent PC you won't notice too much difference in performance comparing Gnome and Xfce but as soon as you're not using AMD 64 or Intel Core 2 Duo you'll see differences. Gnome is horribly slow on older hardware. I have a centrino laptop 1.6GHz with 768 MB RAM and Xfce is obviously faster. Same on my desktop which is an old Athlon 2700 with 1GB DDR 400. My other laptop has Core Duo 2x 1.6 GHz and 1.5GB RAM and Xfce is still noticably faster. But on my friend's AMD Athlon 64 3400 Gnome is very fast (it had better be fast on that kind of processor).

Xfce's lack of integrated samba browsing is easily fixed by installing pyNeighborhood or there is a great howto somewhere on these forums for integrating fusesmb to give Thunar (apparently) native samba browsing capability like Nautilus.

timzak
March 24th, 2008, 05:29 PM
I've tried XFCE a few different times on my PII 400 Mhz computer, and I really don't see a difference in response time between Gnome or XFCE (lol both slow, but usable) I also found I was frustrated trying to customize the taskbars, and I also never have found a theme I've liked for it.

I keep trying it out from time to time just to keep on getting used to it, but I find I keep going back to Gnome or IceWM. (and even Enlightenment from time to time)

I've had the same experience when comparing Xubuntu to Ubuntu default installs. However, I recently tried a minimal install (mini.iso) and manually installed gdm, xorg, xfce, and synaptic. Then I install just what I need with synaptic and in this light, the OS feels much more responsive. Uses about 50MB on bootup vs. about 100MB with a standard Xubuntu install. Now I'd like to try the same with Gnome and see if I can get Gnome to feel more responsive on a slow system.

cardinals_fan
March 26th, 2008, 12:48 AM
well, not really. the difference is that unlike gnome i can still customize my xfce :)

I tried xfce for one day and instantly switched, it is pretty much exactly what I want from a DE. my only gripe is that it's not very well programmed. you can't notice it if you reboot often 8like every day or so), but both the menus and the desktop leak memory like there's no tomorrow. After 4 days or so they are both around 100 MB and desperately need to be killed.

This on both 4.4.0 and the one that originally shipped with xubuntu.

I haven't noticed this. I haven't rebooted my machine for over a week, and they are each using only about 3 MB. It is worth remembering that Xubuntu is not the best Xfce distro and could be much improved. Try Zenwalk for pure, unadulterated Xfce goodness :)

Quillz
May 2nd, 2008, 07:23 AM
I've just started using XFCE/Xubuntu as of late, and I must say, it's really very nice. I'm not sure if it's "better" than GNOME, but there's something about it I just really like. I personally think it looks better, too.

iSplicer
May 2nd, 2008, 07:26 AM
XFCE definately looks better with its blue theme, but GNOME beats it in functionality.

cardinals_fan
May 3rd, 2008, 12:28 AM
XFCE definately looks better with its blue theme, but GNOME beats it in functionality.
You do know that you can change themes, right?

haiji
May 4th, 2008, 11:36 AM
I really like XFCE. I'm a former Windowmaker user XD (I know it's quite minimal but the thing that really pushed me changing into linux was Windowmaker, 5 or 6 years ago).
Why? because I was shocked to see that I'm capable to work with a clean desktop. I mean: no icons, no taskbar (!!), no launch bar etc... It's very cool to see an empty desktop with a cool wallpaper and only a single window in the middle of it. And that's only possible with a righ-click menu.
Imo Xfce is the natural evolution of windowmaker-like enviroments: very customizable (windowmaker can even use config files xD), in fact you can use all the gtk themes; minimal but beatiful, compiz-fusion works great in last versions, and perfect compatibility with gnome apps.
I know that gnome panels are customizable and it's possible to hide desktop icons, but for some reason I still feel claustrophobic (:lolflag:) in KDE and gnome, can't tell why. Maybe it's because with xfce I feel further away from microsoft's desktops.

btw, sorry for my english ;)

cardinals_fan
May 4th, 2008, 06:59 PM
Why? because I was shocked to see that I'm capable to work with a clean desktop. I mean: no icons, no taskbar (!!), no launch bar etc... It's very cool to see an empty desktop with a cool wallpaper and only a single window in the middle of it. And that's only possible with a righ-click menu.

Sounds like you would enjoy a *box.

RiceMonster
May 4th, 2008, 10:51 PM
I'll probably try Xfce soon. I'm pretty happy with my GNOME setup, so right now I'm not that interested in switching/trying anything else out just yet. I like Fluxbox too, it's nice.

John T. Monkey
May 5th, 2008, 08:04 AM
This happens to be my first post from my shiny new Xubuntu 8.04 install. I was previously using Ubuntu 7.10, but thought I'd see if xfce would go any faster than gnome. I did use Xubuntu Edgy before, and was very happy with it, but then went back when I upgraded, for some reason I can't quite remember.

So far, theres not much difference between the two. I prefer the gnome menus, they are better laid out.
I'm noticing that xfce seems to draw windows faster, and firefox starts in about 5/6 seconds for me instead of 10 on my last install. My memory usage at the moment seems to be hovering around the same.

The best thing is the Xubuntu splash screen. :)

I will stick with it and see what happens...

anv
May 15th, 2008, 08:59 PM
I like also Xfce, both in Debian and Ubuntu.

charlemagne86
May 21st, 2008, 06:56 AM
Okay so what i've seen in this thread is the expereinces and personal preferences of users with respect to Gnome vs Xfce......

But could someone enlighten me, if possible, on the technical aspect(differences/advantages) among the two>.

thnx.

bytor4232
August 10th, 2008, 03:47 PM
I'm no programmer, but I've been a hardcore Linux user and sysadmin since 1998. Basically, XFCE4 uses less resources. Period. Its gotten a lot more stable and leaks a lot less memory under the last few releases. Of course, if you load GNOME and KDE services with XFCE4, then it uses more resources than GNOME, cause its using GNOME resources as well as XFCE resources.

In my opinion, they both offer the same type of desktop environment. You have a file manager on the desktop, and a multi-panel system that is almost infinitely customizable, as well as a basic window manager.

GNOME seems to handle more things in the backend. For instance, when a program goes out to lunch, I can click the close button, and a window will pop up asking if you want to force-quit. Also extended functions work better on Ubuntu, my volume control keys, multimedia keys, and function keys work under Ubuntu, they don't work under Xubuntu. The best I've ever done under Xubuntu is the volume control. I've never been able to get the screen to blank under Xubuntu with the screen function key, and my laptop won't suspend under Xubuntu, only Ubuntu.

If you have an older PC with few resources, it makes sense to run XFCE. I'm currently running Xubuntu like a champ on a 500mgz Duron with 256 megs of Ram. If you want an environment that takes care of most things for you, then GNOME is for you, but XFCE has a more configuration options. Scroll wheeling on the desktop to change virtual desktops is the bomb. In Gnome, you keep the workspace switcher in a corner, you can scroll wheel by zipping to the corner the switcher is in.

If you have a gig of ram and a processor faster than, say, 2 Ghz, then your not going to see significant improvements between the two DEs. I've switched between Ubuntu and Xubuntu on my Celeron 1.7 ghz laptop with 1 gig of RAM and my 2.8 Ghz Pentium D with 2 gigs of ram, and GNOME is almost as fast as XFCE, not really enough to make me pine for XFCE4.

bytor4232
August 10th, 2008, 10:24 PM
And I spoke too soon. This afternoon I upgraded my Laptop from Gutsy to Hardy, and booted into XFCE4 on a lark. All the buttons and functions that didn't work before are working now. It booted in about 15 seconds with GNOME and KDE sessions turned off in "Sessions and Startup". If GNOME sessions are are checked on, it takes as long to start up as GNOME. The GNOME and KDE applications seem to behave themselves too with the sessions turned off.

So I guess I just proved myself wrong. XFCE4 at least starts up in about half the time, depending on what its gotta start.

L815
August 10th, 2008, 10:33 PM
Xfce is nice, and on a duo core 2gb ram laptop, I do notice xfce launches programs a bit faster regardless of libraries.

One thing I like Gnome better is the volume manager is more intuitive, and I can select multiple options on the desktop without holding ctrl.

Xfce also takes long to delete a file from the desktop and show up in the trash. It's as if it gets lost then finds its way after a while.

Even though there is a slight speed in launching applications, I find gnome works great (without compiz), especially paired with OpenBox WM. Talk about speed!

But on a side note, I find xfce's WM much better than metacity just for the fact that it has it's own compositions without the use of compiz. I find it superior to metacities damn black boxes -_-

yanom
January 23rd, 2009, 12:11 AM
if you kept right-clicking on your xp desktop, i bet it would shutdown eventually.

yeah... from memory overflow.

:)

MikeTheC
January 24th, 2009, 08:30 AM
I've got a friend with a low-end system and going from Ubuntu to Xubuntu, according to him, made all the performance difference in the world.

I would say that, generally, if Gnome (or certainly if KDE) run on your system without any signs or hints of sluggishness, you're not going to see a performance improvement using XFCE, since your system at that point is already way ahead of the threshold.

That being said, I really don't personally care for XFCE's design metaphors (I don't mean about it's low resource consumption). It's much more of a fight for me to get stuff done in both XFCE and KDE than it is for me to use Gnome.

But XFCE definitely serves it's purposes, and so long as people are using it and loving it, who am I to say anything about it?

RomanIvanov
January 24th, 2009, 09:40 AM
I love Xubuntu and even use it everywhere - quick or slow PC. And I can use all applications from Gnome and KDE :).

cozmicharlie
January 27th, 2009, 06:52 AM
I am trying out xubuntu and ubuntu with gnome with enlightment now. I have tried kde and xfce but I always seem to gravitate back to gnome.

FYI - for those that want a right click menu in windows (if you are like me and have to use one for work) check out Emerge Desktop (it is free) - emergedesktop.org. Completely gets rid of the start menu.

hero1900
July 4th, 2009, 12:49 AM
i try XFCE yesterday and i am thinking to switch over to it
it has everyhting that i need and it is easier to navigate and handle it need some work but it is better than gnome for me

credobyte
July 4th, 2009, 02:22 AM
Looks clean and fast, but .. not suitable for a desktop PC ( from my point of view ) :-k

XubuRoxMySox
July 4th, 2009, 12:38 PM
What an amazing difference a DE makes! I've become a fan of LXDE (http://lxde.org) from the moment I started experimenting with it. It's even more lightweight than Xfce, the next fastest thing to having no DE at all. Yet it is beautiful and super-simple.

You can drag and drop applications and/or folders to the desktop from the file manager, or just use the menus. Wallpapers are easily changed (the default blue is pretty, but you can add them from any site and add them to usr/share/lxde/wallpapers).

LXDE flies along really fast and effortlessly on older hardware, too. And for looks, though they aren't related, I would say that LXDE could pass as KDE's pretty "little sister."

They're actually working on an official *buntu built on the LXDE environment. Look for "Lubuntu" in the next year or two.

-Robin

ram4nd
November 7th, 2009, 09:42 PM
I have used gnome for about 2 years. And tomorrow I am going to install Xubuntu. I hoped that I can get some answers from this thread, but its seems that it's all about taste. I hope I remember to post here that how I feel about the difference.

XubuRoxMySox
November 7th, 2009, 11:58 PM
Well, my love affair with LXDE is over. It's full of little bugs which, over time and across multiple distros, have just sort of ruined the fun for me.

It's certainly lightweight, but the trade off is an unrelenting series of constant minor aggravations. LXDE remains "under heavy development" which, to me, means that it's immature and changing too quickly for me to keep up with.

I've learned that LXDE takes the majority of its code from Xfce anyway - so I tend to conclude that when LXDE "grows up," it'll be a Xfce clone (they already look very much alike - there's very little difference between PCManFM and Thunar, for example).

So I'm playing with Xubuntu Karmic - my first foray into Xfce. And I must say, it rawks! No bugs!! Yay! And it's not noticably any slower than LXDE was on my machine. But definitely faster than Gnome was.

-Robin

cgroza
November 11th, 2009, 10:45 AM
on my 256mb ram sistem gnome was very slow....but i instaled xfce and now i can run even 9 apps at a time without lagging

yurx cherio
November 16th, 2009, 08:16 PM
> I like nautilus better
You can run nautilus in Xfce same way as any other app. It runs just fine. In fact you can run and enjoy ANY of your favorite GNOME apps. Both GNOME and Xfce use GTK2+ libraries for UI.

Also you don't need to install xubuntu as a separate OS. Simply run Synaptic in your Ubuntu and select xubuntu-desktop. Any time you log in you can choose to run either GNOME or Xfce session. It is that simlpe.

Dragonbite
November 16th, 2009, 08:29 PM
I give Xfce a +1 for not requiring Evolution.

This way I can pick my choice (e.g. Thunderbird) and not have to have Evolution taking up space.

Simian Man
November 16th, 2009, 08:47 PM
Well, my love affair with LXDE is over. It's full of little bugs which, over time and across multiple distros, have just sort of ruined the fun for me.

It's certainly lightweight, but the trade off is an unrelenting series of constant minor aggravations. LXDE remains "under heavy development" which, to me, means that it's immature and changing too quickly for me to keep up with.
I also found LXDE to be quite buggy. Going from Gnome or KDE to Xfce, you will not lose too much in terms of features and customization (and gain a couple things). Going to LXDE, however, would be quite painful.


I give Xfce a +1 for not requiring Evolution.

This way I can pick my choice (e.g. Thunderbird) and not have to have Evolution taking up space.
Yeah Xfce sticks much better to the Unix concept of modularity.

It used to be that Gnome was focused on making a simple, easy to use desktop. With the developments of Gnome 3, along with a few other changes in the Gnome world, I really don't know what their focus is any more. Xfce seems to be the only big desktop that isn't trying to give us some kind of crazy new desktop metaphor that nobody asked for :).

Dragonbite
November 16th, 2009, 08:59 PM
It used to be that Gnome was focused on making a simple, easy to use desktop. With the developments of Gnome 3, along with a few other changes in the Gnome world, I really don't know what their focus is any more. Xfce seems to be the only big desktop that isn't trying to give us some kind of crazy new desktop metaphor that nobody asked for :).
Yet. ;)

Simian Man
November 16th, 2009, 09:01 PM
Yet. ;)

Ha ha yeah, maybe Xfce 5 will attempt to revolutionize the way in which we use our computers. I don't know what I'd use then!

Dragonbite
November 16th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Ha ha yeah, maybe Xfce 5 will attempt to revolutionize the way in which we use our computers. I don't know what I'd use then!

Chances are CLI won't change much in the near future.

gradinaruvasile
November 16th, 2009, 09:15 PM
I installed Xubuntu 9.10 on a Dell D630 (Core2Duo 2Ghz/2 GB RAM/Nvidia 135m) laptop a few days ago. I have a 9.04 Gnome install on it too. Xubuntu is far more responsive and snappier in general and its really obvious on this high end hardware too. The window rendering is faster in XFCE compared to Gnome (no compiz).
Advantages:
- The fact that you are not forced to use PulseAudio by default (and having the old style volume control applet) - anyway i installed PA and Blueman to use my Bluetooth headset, but the sound worked wery well with everything OOTB.
- No Evolution stuff hogging memory/running in the background - I never needed it anyways, better off with Seamonkey
- Full Gnome compatibility - You can install anything you can under Gnome...
- Snappy window rendering, very responsive system
-

Cons:

- Takes a time to configure the basics that you have in Gnome included - but still runs fast after configuring the gvfs support in gigolo that is supposed to work ootb but it requires some packages (gnome-mount and some i dont remember).
- Dont have that many configuration options than in Gnome;
- No easy way (that i know of) to customize menus;
- Some programs icons do not appear in the menus - Thats a big one, if u are a noob, u're toast...

All in all i like it very much. But some degree of knowledge of Ubuntu/linux is recommended when using it.

Dragonbite
November 16th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Does Xubuntu 9.10 include UbuntuOne?

yurx cherio
November 16th, 2009, 09:40 PM
If it doesn't you can install it. The important thing is - it works under Xfce.

Praxicoide
November 16th, 2009, 09:42 PM
My vote goes for Xfce for modularity, customization and lightweight. Gnome does seem better for newcomers.

I will try Gnome 3, of course, but for now, I'm enjoying Xfce4.6 too much.

ugmoe2000
January 6th, 2010, 03:40 AM
I had always heard good things about XFCE resource-wise and I just upgraded my father's old P4 1.8 Ghz, 256 mb ram machine from 8.04 - 9.10 only to find that Gnome had become WAAAAAy to slow on the same hardware.

I tried trimming Gnome down to a minimalist installation /w few running services etc to no avail... I figured I would have to move him over to a heavily customized fluxbox. For s&g I decided to try XFCE first, and I was very impressed. My first thought was "why am I not using this?"

I went through a Fluxbox phase that left me desiring a minimalist desktop with just a tiny-bit more usability. However I never got around to trying XFCE for one reason or another. After seeing it on my father's old machine I had to throw it on mine just to play and see if I could customize it. After one day playing I think I'll be using XFCE for at least the next few years. Even after gnome 3 is released I have a feeling it's going to be just a bit heavy/laggy so it looks like I found a new favorite.

NightHawk877
January 6th, 2010, 04:45 AM
I'm a die-hard GNOME user. I tried, KDE and XFCE and didn't like both.

XubuRoxMySox
January 6th, 2010, 01:03 PM
I went from Gnome to Openbox in a quest for speed, and whoa! I love it. Simple, minimal, powerful!

But I also run an older 'puter that lots of people share (kids mostly), so I needed a lightweight, graphical, "familiar-looking" point-and-shoot interface. LXDE (http://lxde.org) fit that bill nicely and is uber-lightweight, but on my machines it has persistent bugs that finally drove me to give Xfce a shot.

It's kinda like "Gnome Lite" I guess. My first look at Xfce is Xubuntu Karmic, and omygosh! It matches Openbox for speed but it's easy enough for the kids to use without any coaching. Much faster and much less demanding on resources than Gnome. Heavier than LXDE to be sure, but I experience as much phenomenal speed and snappiness with Xubuntu 9.10 than I did with my homemade minimal Ubuntu/LXDE mixture.

-Robin

~sHyLoCk~
January 6th, 2010, 01:31 PM
I am loving compiz. It's really fast and smooth when you are using it without any DEs like Gnome or KDE.

monkeyKata
January 23rd, 2010, 08:03 PM
Xfce seems to be the only big desktop that isn't trying to give us some kind of crazy new desktop metaphor that nobody asked for :).

I like how you worded this!

Zoot7
January 23rd, 2010, 11:20 PM
I generally rather gnome atop openbox. Xfce I don't really find any faster and it's also missing some functionality I've grown used to like a tabbed file manager.
Sometimes I'll just use openbox alone, but I find it rather limiting and convoluted at times to use it 100% of the time, as I'd need a DE.

Rifester
January 24th, 2010, 01:11 AM
I tried Xubuntu for the first time last night and was impressed. It ran great and looks better then Ubuntu. I cannot understand why Ubuntu's Karmic themes (boot screen, wallpapers, etc.) were so poor. Xubuntu's developers obviously gave more attention in this area. I know this doesn't matter much and can be changed, but to a new user a first impression is important.
I don't know much about XFCE. What negatives would there be in swtiching from Gnome for a basic user?

beetleman64
January 24th, 2010, 01:34 AM
I greatly dislike the black UI of Xubuntu, but I found a baseline install of xfce to be rather nice, like a very light KDE (if such a thing exists)

Stan_1936
January 24th, 2010, 01:40 AM
I tried Xubuntu..themes ...were so poor....I know this doesn't matter much....

For the majority(not ALL) Xubuntu users, improved system responsiveness and NOT LOOKS is the main reason for choosing this distro.

This is the case with me. I use it on old hardware and the difference in overall speed, between it and the regular Gnome Ubuntu, is like night and day.


..What negatives would there be in swtiching from Gnome for a basic user?

I have seen no issues with any gnome apps in Xubuntu.

Rifester
January 24th, 2010, 01:51 AM
I actually thought Xubuntu looked better out of the box then Ubuntu. I understand it is designed to run faster on older machines. So if an average Gnome user thought it looked better, and it ran better, what differences might cause problems when switching (if any). I was impressed with Xubuntu will be testing it more!

cdude42
March 30th, 2010, 12:44 AM
if they use anything like gnome-shell in ubuntu im definitely switching to xubuntu. for now, im gonna stick with gnome

fredbird67
April 12th, 2010, 09:54 PM
I'm with Simian Man. My first introduction to Linux was Mandrake in early 2004, and in January of 2005, I ditched Windows on my computer for the last time. Naturally, Mandrake is a KDE-centric distribution, and I was hooked on KDE and wouldn't consider a distro that didn't come with KDE. I also liked Mepis and PCLinuxOS a lot, too. Interestingly enough, I tried Kubuntu once and did not like it at all.

But that all changed when KDE 4 came out. It was slow, buggy, and confusing, and I thoroughly despised it and now totally refuse to consider KDE, and I don't care what so-called "improvements" have taken place since KDE 4 was released. Therefore, I went for broke and switched to Ubuntu, and I really got to where I liked GNOME quite a bit.

However, even on a computer with 1GB of RAM, I've noticed some sluggishness on occasion. Also, with the release of GNOME 3 being just around the corner, I do not wish to go through the abandonment of something that works perfectly in favor of a completely half-baked idea all over again, thank you very much. Besides, I've used Xfce before and as such, I already feel more or less at home with it.

What's more, I can still use most of the same desktop items that GNOME also uses (GTK themes, icon themes, Beryl themes, and, of course, wallpapers), although modifying a GTK theme if it's not entirely to your liking as-is is a little more involved in Xfce than it is in GNOME. But I can live with that little trade-off.

Fred in St. Louis

gallifrey
July 24th, 2010, 07:08 PM
I've been using Gnome up until now, but am thinking of switching, as I hate Evolution, and the fact that you can't integrate Thunderbird/Lightning/Sunbird in the same way that Evolution is integrated. (Yes, I am fussy.)

I might give XFCE a spin, and see what it's like.

Dragonbite
July 25th, 2010, 04:56 AM
I've been using Gnome up until now, but am thinking of switching, as I hate Evolution, and the fact that you can't integrate Thunderbird/Lightning/Sunbird in the same way that Evolution is integrated. (Yes, I am fussy.)

I might give XFCE a spin, and see what it's like.

I'm not all that keen on Evolution, so I just don't use it. I prefer Gnome-shell when it works.

ernestj
December 13th, 2011, 07:12 AM
I noticed this thread started before I ever tried Linux. But I threw out Windows for Ubuntu 11.04 went to 11.10 still loved it. But I tried Xubuntu 11.10. I thought it was beautiful and wow, fast! My desktop is better looking than Ubuntu and I am hooked on XFCE! I recommend Xubuntu to everyone.

kherring7383
December 14th, 2011, 03:05 PM
For the last couple of months, I have been trying out several variations of Ubuntu 11.10 to include Mint 12 with Mate. And although I learned to tolerate Unity, I felt somewhat lost without the ability to customize it like Gnome 2x. However, for the last few days, I have been playing around with Xubuntu 11.10 with XFCE and I was really impressed with it and how closely it resembles Gnome. And since I really don't use Compiz that much, I used the built in features to create transparent windows and menus and was impressed of how extensive the overall operating system is. In short, I'll probably stick with Xubuntu for a while and see where the development goes and would like to recommend it for those looking for an alternative to Unity or MATE.

WinRiddance
February 4th, 2012, 08:15 PM
Ditto, same goes for me, switched to Xubuntu/Gnome ...

What I mean to say is that I installed Compiz per http://www.howtoforge.com/enabling-compiz-on-xubuntu-11.10-oneiric-ocelot and then added a few Gnome based apps that I'd been using for years, stuff like Brasero, Libre/OpenOffice, Gedit, Nautilus, and some basic games. All in all I think Xubuntu 11.10 is just as customizable, perhaps even more so than Ubuntu 10.10 ... with the added bonus that you'll have your Xubuntu perform just a little better while being able to keep the look and feel of Gnome2 that's been abandoned by Shuttleworth.

After I learned to hate Unity and really dislike some of the Gnome3 flakiness the only alternatives for me were Debian Squeeze (that lasted 3 months) and Linux Mint. I have to say that Mint is pretty spectacular ... until you have some serious issues. There's enough of a difference between Ubuntu & Mint that frustrating little issues can become really irritating to deal with and the Mint forum is IMO one of the worst "Big Distro" forums there is. When I had a fairly difficult issue to deal with I ended up bumping a thread for 9 days before finally deciding, to heck with that. I don't wanna use Mint and Leech of the *buntu forum, but that's just me.

So I switched to the "mediocre and for old machines" XFCE based Xubuntu several months ago and now I'm just as happy with Xubuntu as I used to be with Ubuntu 10.10 which is saying a lot. Heck, even my desktop behaves so close to my previous Ubuntu desktop that I'll be able to do without the full fledged Gnome2 indefinitely (unless XFCE decides to make some radical unwanted changes too). Best of all, the highly configurable panels. All of my panels are XFCE because I find those moving, glowing, jumping, hiding docks totally irritating. So like a lot of others, I would highly recommend Xubuntu to anyone who thought Ubuntu with Gnome2 was as close to perfection as possible.

.

samy234
February 5th, 2012, 01:04 AM
After switching to linux mint because of unity, getting frustrated with mate, switching ot gnom3 with gnome shell frippery extension, experiencing a bad graphics bug on gnome 3, trying lxde and wasn't able to change any settings finally I arrived at the holy land of xfce. and i love it

why?
<rant>
-stuff works !! really it does :p
-my battery live went up
-its simple, simple is best, i love simple machines!
-you can change stuff easily
-had no frustrating experience yet
-I'm a former windows user and like the god old way to do stuff. My first windows was a pre installed Millenium Edition, ah a wasted youth. I switched to windows 2000 pro Best ******* windows ever! I tried 98 se, XP home/pro Vista home/pro, Windows 7 pro. All of them never came close to the stability and responsiveness I had with 2000. Windows 8 will propably be the worst windows ever (yes even worse then ME) as far as I have seen.
-Really whats wrong with mainstream desktop developers now adays? "Uh you now that stuff that worked over 20 years and that everybody grew accustomed to? **** it we need to change it!". Are they bored? Yeah yeah you want to appeal to new users or whatever, but for me linux is more of a former windows user operating system. You can't appeal to mac users because they are a cult. You can't appeal to kids that get their first Laptop because they want to play games and watch dvds without learning the command line to install libcss first. The only users that want to try Linux are people that work regulary with their computers and wan't a more stable, safer and faster Operating system. And the people that want this are what? Yeah exactly frustrated windows users! So don't make it harder for them to learn to use your operating system.

In my opinion the developers of unity and gnome 3 ****** up the chances for their distros to appeal to all the soon to be frustrated with the changes of Windows 8 users that will be looking for the good old way to do stuff ;)
</rant>

Dr Watts On
March 5th, 2012, 07:51 PM
@samy234
My rant <rant>sppelinnng, punct'uation, and cApitalization</rant> aside, once I waded through all you said: +1. Yes! Exactly! Right on! Thank you for saying it!
Too bad dev's wouldn't comprehend the principles you outlined even if they read them. They're too wrapped up in their own type of Ivory Towers that have lots of mirrors to look into. We, the puny know-nothing users, can not influence them with their TOYS (Compiz, are you KIDDING).
The computer is supposed to be a TOOL to help me DO THINGS and be MORE productive. What the ... is the point of eating with a fork that has to be re-shaped and polished and tweaked for every meal?
Linux DE's have become games in themselves. The first thing I do in Windows and Linux is remove all wallpapers, select a solid color, and use the "blank screen" screensaver. I customize shortcuts and organize folders to contain them per tasks: a/v editing, writing letters, making notes, keeping track of my "LastTask.txt" on startup.
So re: XFCE vs. Gnome DE, I like XFCE. For kicks, I tried various appearance customizations, my equivalent of using an OS/DE as a game. Entertaining, very interesting, but when I say vanilla, installing on a friend's old old laptop, I MEAN vanilla. XFCE is it.
PS: by vanilla I do NOT mean pure terminal CLI only.

jrisreal
March 29th, 2012, 09:19 PM
Bumping the thread. Due to the direction gnome is taking, I decided to switch to XFCE. I had Xubuntu installed on my old laptop with 506 MB RAM (Yes, 506) and some really low-end processor. I remembered how similar XFCE was with gnome and realized that it would be the equivalent of going back to Gnome 2...except with better colours (sorry, but blue is infinitely better than brown. A brown desktop looks like feces). XFCE just feels tons nicer than gnome/unity/kde ever did for me. KDE feels over-done...the icons don't flow together and Konsole and most other KDE apps is/are very clunky. KDE/gnome/unity didn't run slow, but XFCE ran much faster and snappier. And also, XFCE seems more stable...I haven't ever experienced a single bug with Xubuntu.