Kubunt better than XP and the answer to change

[Omnios]

I first downloaded KDE a few months ago and didnt realy play with it as I realy like Gnome. However for the last few days I have been doing some serios playing around with it and am very impressed with it. This kind of a little review as first impressions are a bit decieving, At first it raised an eye brow but as I played with it I became more and more impressed.

Even in file managment I kind of though oh ya till I started using it and it works well. The find seems pretty straight forward. My final impression is that it is very Linux.

Theme customization is as good and in many ways better than windows 98 and makes win Xp look very very bad! There are many themes and styles available on line but you will have to go looking for them online as synaaptic does not do it justice. Firefox looks a hell of a lot better in Kubuntu than Gnome you just have to see it.

I have head that KDE is to win ish but my impression is more that it is what winX should have developed into while still maintaining its Linux heritage. No questions hand down KDE is better than Xp and the onlything holding it back is the lack of the new users fetish with a double click install.

The current version supports menu transparecies but not Konkorer transparencies that should be supported with the next version of X. Dock supposidly work but I havent tryed any yet. Anyways im looking forward to the next version of KDE.

Anyways if you had an incling to try KDE hope this help make up your mind. Anyone with suggestions or problems please feel free to post them.:rolleyes:

[benplaut]

alot of people try KDE, and are in love... i'm not one of them.

Despite this, when i switch my family over to linux, i'll get them running KDE... more flexible from a GUI settings manager...

[Arktis]

I dunno, kde to me is more of a hobbyist desktop environment. Gnome is far better for new users, though there are some apps for kde that people have stated are much better, I find gnome much more than adequate. To add to that, despite (or perhaps because of) it's wide range of cadillac features, kde has always given me stability problems. Gnome has been cleaner, simpler, and more stable. In the past it was ugly and akward looking, but gnome has really matured. I think the fact that the developers of ubuntu (arguably the best linux distro today) have chosen gnome says a lot. I think people should trust that.

[Omnios]

alot of people try KDE, and are in love... i'm not one of them.

Despite this, when i switch my family over to linux, i'll get them running KDE... more flexible from a GUI settings manager...

This is sort of my first consideration when writing this, there are those that feel uncortable sitting in front of Gnome or are so used to xp that want the same sort of feel and its not like a clone but rather the feel or theme to it. It took me a very long time to get comfortable Xp switching from X98 to the point where there where days I didnt want to use it. The transition to Ubuntu was smooth though I missed a few things that did sseriosly bug me.

Anyways my impressions so far is if you are uncomfortable with Gnome (I love Gnome and recomend it) and it just bugs you sitting in front of it, Kubuntu might be worth a try. Its not a XP experience but rather an experiance in its own and after a while you will notice advantages over XP that you will miss if on XP. Fist thing I noticed is the lightning fast speed on a 1.6ghz 256megs ram. One note Im not comparing KDE to Gnome but rather to win XP aand KDE is better as for Gnome and KDE that counts on personal tast.

[gw90se]

A few months back, I started with Ubuntu then shortly after installed teh kde desktop. I have played with both but still find myself gravitating back to the Gnome enviroment.

[Maggot]

Most of the applications I like are for gnome so it's only natural I prefer gnome over kde. I like the fact kde doesn't require as many libraries and the like compare to gnome.

[mstlyevil]

My experience with both KDE and Gnome is that KDE is slower to load applications and has more crashes than Gnome. I gravitate to the look and feel of KDE, but Gnome has just performed better for me. I might change my mind at the release of KDE Breezy Badger.

[drizek]

"it's wide range of cadillac features"

i dont really want to get into a whole big argument over this, but what exactly are these "cadillac" features? I can appretiate gnomes simplicity and cleanliness, but I just dont see it as a "high-tech" desktop.

[Cirkus]

gnome went throught a total UI makeover what, two or three years ago? I hated it at the time, but I've come to appreciate it. KDE, on the other hand, still looks pretty much the same as it did when I tried out 1.0 way back when (themes notwithstanding since they don't change the menu bar or the menu). it would be good for them to take a look at the default layout and see what they could do better.

That having been said, I think that XP has a horrible interface (unless you strip it of all the crud, then you basically have the windows 9x interface) and that if you should compare *nix to anything, it should be to Apple; who appear to have always done UI right.

[blastus]

No question about it, KDE buries the Windows XP "experience." Who needs to $pay$ for WindowBlinds and other crap that don't come close to KDE customization anyway? Just Konqueror as file manager alone; I can customize it anyway I want and have multiple tabs. Can't do that in Windows Explorer--that piece of garbage is so bound to Internet Explorer.

KDE's fully customizable transparent panels, themes, window styles, window decorations etc... and superkaramba make XP a dull experience. The only thing I have experienced that Windows XP has over KDE is performance but wait till KDE 4.0 comes out.

I haven't used GNOME that much but I really want to get into it. I've seen some incredible screenshots of customized GNOME desktops.

[ltmon]

Well for all those who think that KDE's themeability blows Windows XP away... just take a look at this:

http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=29551

:?

[drizek]

Well for all those who think that KDE's themeability blows Windows XP away... just take a look at this:

http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=29551

:?
and?

[ltmon]

and?

Just that I was surprised at how close to WinXP he made KDE look... found it funny is all :)

[Cirkus]

You can also get it to look pretty close to MacOS 8; but it's still distinctly KDE. ;)

[drizek]

and mac OSX

and GNOME too...

i just dont see how hte ability to make kde look like windows can be considered a bad thing.

[Perfect Storm]

Heh, it's all about taste I think.

[manicka]

or lack thereof.... ;)

Very clever though :)

[benplaut]

Well for all those who think that KDE's themeability blows Windows XP away... just take a look at this:

http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=29551

:?

that's f*ing incredible... looks exactly the same!

the family computer got 0wn3d by a virus, this may be my key to switch them over :)

[Knome_fan]

http://benjamin.sipsolutions.net/Projects/eXperience/Screenshots

[Perfect Storm]

Well for all those who think that KDE's themeability blows Windows XP away... just take a look at this:

http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=29551

:?

No comment.

[Arktis]

"it's wide range of cadillac features"

i dont really want to get into a whole big argument over this, but what exactly are these "cadillac" features? I can appretiate gnomes simplicity and cleanliness, but I just dont see it as a "high-tech" desktop. Cadillac features are extra things that are added on top of already functional software. To me, it's devoting time and resources to adding fluff when you can spend that time optimizing and debuging already existing code. Yes, kde is a hobbyist desktop environment. There is lots of unnecessary stuff to play around with. So as others say, it comes down to choice. I choose devotion to functionality and stability over devotion ot tweakability and extra unneeded features. Many people go the other way and that's just their taste.

[Knome_fan]

Cadillac features are extra things that are added on top of already functional software. To me, it's devoting time and resources to adding fluff when you can spend that time optimizing and debuging already existing code. Yes, kde is a hobbyist desktop environment. There is lots of unnecessary stuff to play around with. So as others say, it comes down to choice. I choose devotion to functionality and stability over devotion ot tweakability and extra unneeded features. Many people go the other way and that's just their taste.

Oh Jesus, where to begin...
First off, simply disqualifying something as hobbyist surely isn't the way to engage into an intelligent discussion, least off all when the reasons for disqualifying something are so superficial as what you mention.

Second, simply implying that KDE is not devoted to functionality and stability is not only insulting, but equally unintelligent as your first point.

Now let's get to the meat of things:

To me, it's devoting time and resources to adding fluff when you can spend that time optimizing and debuging already existing code.
This point strikes me as particularly uninformed, as everyone following KDE development knows that optimizing KDE, reducing the memory it needs, reducing the resources it needs, shortening start up time, has been a very high priority in every KDE3.x release and it shows.

If anything, Gnome is now only beginning to do the same.

About being hobbyist:
I think this only shows that you simply don't have the slightest clue about KDE.
First off, KDE is based on QT, a toolkit you can call many things, but certainly not unprofessional, or hobbyist.

Second, there is so much great technology under the hood of KDE that disqualifying it as hobbyist really speaks of your ignorance.
Just two examples:
1. Kparts, which make applications so much more powerfull, without adding any fluff and that really fits into the UNIX philosophy of having one app that does one thing well and then combining these applications to get the functionality you need. (Btw., there's nothing even remotely comparable for Gnome)

2. Kio-slaves, which also add functionality to applications without adding fluff.
And again, Gnome really lacks badly in this department. I know there is gnome-vfs, but unlike Gnome, every last KDE application automatically uses Kio-slaves, whereas most Gnome applications don't use gnome-vfs and don't inherit it automatically, which might be a hint about which framework is more professional.

Finally, you really should read the following article, though it is quite old already:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/kde-3-2.ars/1

[Omnios]

He he umm anyone one know how to take a screen shot in KDE cant seem to find it.

[aysiu]

He he umm anyone one know how to take a screen shot in KDE cant seem to find it. KSnapshot

[Muhammad]

This is truely amazing, it looks alot better then the default Windows XP theme.

This proves that (K)Ubuntu literally owns Windows.

[TrailerTrash]

Well i grew up with KDE :smile: LOL..But after trying GNOME.....I allmost fell in love with GNOME......I guess it was because it was the most "un-windows" like, unlike KDE, that is the most "windows" like. Dose that make sense? :confused:

[aysiu]

I still don't understand what's so "Windows-like" about KDE (v. Gnome), apart from the fact that it starts with one bar at the bottom instead of a bar at the bottom and one at the top (which is an easily modifiable situation, by the way).

Both have something like a Start Menu (either a Gnome foot or the KMenu). Both have a windows list for multi-tasking. Both have a clock. Both have a desktop. Why is KDE more "Windows-like"? I hear that all the time on Linux forums, and it makes no sense to me.

[manicka]

I think it comes from the kde default which is more windowsish than gnome and of course most of the windows clone efforts like the one above are done on kde.

[Brunellus]

KDE's default K-menu placement is at the bottom-left, just like windows'. Also, there is only one pulldown "start-menu" in KDE, rather than several in Gnome.

Amusingly, I used to run Win95 and Win98 with the taskbar and start menu at the TOP, thus putting the start menu exactly where it is in my ubuntu Gnome setup. Gnome did this for me by default, and I was delighted.

Also, my baby brother, ten years old, accidentally removed a gnome-panel...and, knowing absolutely NOTHING about gnome or even computers, managed to put one on. Why do I even mention this? 1) I think it makes him a nifty kid, but more importantly 2) it gives the lie to all the 'useability' bumph...what a lot of people really mean by useability is "similarity to things we've been drilled in".

[aysiu]

Then perhaps instead of saying that KDE is more Windows-like, people should say the default menu placement and configuration in KDE is more Windows-like. I think, especially for newbies, saying "KDE is more Windows-like" is misleading, because it implies that the whole desktop environment, including what it can and can't do is more Windows-like than Gnome, which simply isn't true.

The truth is that KDE and Gnome are more like each other than they are like Windows, and KDE's functioning (for example, defaulting to single-click to open files, instead of double-clicking) is kind of its own thing and not like Windows at all.

[drizek]

exactly. kde is not a windows clone. every time a gnome user says that about kde they are destroying the image of the open source desktop. linux is not a windows clone, kde is not a windows clone, firefox is not an IE clone, OOo is not a MS office clone. Shut up already.

That said, the reason why windows xp 'themes" are almost always done on kde and not on gnome is not because kde has any similarities to windows. It is because kde is, to put it very bluntly, better.

[Arktis]

I want to appologize. I had no idea what I was saying could be so upsetting.


Oh *****, where to begin...
First off, simply disqualifying something as hobbyist surely isn't the way to engage into an intelligent discussion, least off all when the reasons for disqualifying something are so superficial as what you mention.
One way to choose something is to think about it for a bit and then eliminate options for various reasons until they are left with one. My choice was gnome, and I explained my reasoning twice now and I won't argue. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you. Really, it's okay, honest. ;-)


Second, simply implying that KDE is not devoted to functionality and stability is not only insulting, but equally unintelligent as your first point.
It is very easily understood that functionality of some basic type is automaticly a goal. It would be insulting to suggest someone didn't understand that on some level. And by the way, you've just done a good job of trying to insult me twice in one sentence. Anyways, the term "cadillac" is key to understanding what I am talking about. I won't explain it a third time because that might infuriate someone. That's kind of sad, but once again, I won't argue.

If you like KDE, that's fine. It doesn't harm me or anyone else, that's for sure. I'm not interested in pitting two opinions against eachother. My 2nd post was in response to a request for further explanation. This will be my final post in this thread. I'm sorry, I should have realized that by expressing myself in favor of one thing over another would offend someone.

[aysiu]

That said, the reason why windows xp 'themes" are almost always done on kde and not on gnome is not because kde has any similarities to windows. It is because kde is, to put it very bluntly, better. Better at what--designing themes for? Can you be more specific?

[Wolki]

it gives the lie to all the 'useability' bumph...what a lot of people really mean by useability is "similarity to things we've been drilled in".

I think that's what people mean by "intuitive", and that's why I think that word isn't good in describing useable interfaces. Usability is more, I think, and the Gnome HIG is a good step in that direction.

[drizek]

Better at what--designing themes for? Can you be more specific?

yes. its not as true with windows xp as it is with osx/vista, but kde is more powerfull as far as styles/windecos go. Also, the kicker has more features than the gnome panel and is more customizable. you can use kbfx to have a long start menu like in windows. you can hide systray icons. the different applets adapt to kicker backgrounds better than they do in gnome. having one kmenu versus three gnome menus helps too.

However, these things are more apparent when you are trying to make it look like vista/osx. the baghira osx theme for kde is great and is very customizable. Linux currently lacks the xgl-type technology used in both these OS's, but kde gets around that with a couple of "hacks" that are not found in gnome. The first is the crystal windeco which uses fake transparency. You can use real transparency using a new feature in kde 3.5 which allows you to use xcomp transparency on just the windeco without the rest of the window. The downside is that it is not entirely stable at this point, and it makes the title text harder to read. kxdocker is also more powerfull than any gnome dock, so that seals the deal as far as OSX goes. And then on top of that, baghira has a konqueror sidebar which makes it very much like OSX's finder. KDE also comes with a universal menu bar similiar to the one in OSX.

im sure there are more reasons why, but i think that covers the basics.

[manicka]

I've never understood all this heavy theming to make linux look like something it isn't. In my experience it always comes at a cost of the efficiency and productivety of my system. I find the ability to do all these things one of the least attractive qualities of kde.
I'm happy to go with the basics and maintain the speed and productivety of my system. Personally, I like my machine looking like a linux box.

but hey, to each their own :)

[drizek]

well the great thing about it is that there is no such thing as a linux "look". You can make linux look like windows, osx, and anything in between. there is no performance hit associated with themeing, unless you use a dock or desktop widgets, but that is to be expected.

[manicka]

there is no performance hit associated with themeing, unless you use a dock or desktop widgets, but that is to be expected.

or xcomp etc. All these things place a drain on performance

[drizek]

xcomp actually makes it faster because it puts all the eyecandy strain on the GPU instead of the cpu.

[manicka]

I was sure that I've read threads here that talk about xcomp making things sluggish

[daller]

No question about it, KDE buries the Windows XP "experience." Who needs to $pay$ for WindowBlinds and other crap that don't come close to KDE customization anyway? Just Konqueror as file manager alone; I can customize it anyway I want and have multiple tabs. Can't do that in Windows Explorer--that piece of garbage is so bound to Internet Explorer.

KDE's fully customizable transparent panels, themes, window styles, window decorations etc... and superkaramba make XP a dull experience. The only thing I have experienced that Windows XP has over KDE is performance but wait till KDE 4.0 comes out.

I haven't used GNOME that much but I really want to get into it. I've seen some incredible screenshots of customized GNOME desktops.

Well, Windows XP doesn't have tapping in the browser, or even multiple desktops - but simply wait and see how many of KDE's features Vista borrows - Quite a lot I think!

[poofyhairguy]

I was sure that I've read threads here that talk about xcomp making things sluggish

Depends. It doesn't with an Nvidia card with Nvidia drivers (me uses Xcompmgr all day). Then its faster.

[Omnios]

Sweet GTK apps within KDE. I was getting peeved at how the gnome components looked in KDE so whent and did some searching on synaptic and realy coulnt find anything till I did a KDE GTK seach in synaptic and stumbled apon the Geramik themes and engines in synaptic. I tryed aand loadind them in Gnome and they are realy sweet (rounded gnome looks nice). ANyways I tryed using then in the GTK styes and fonts in KDE and it would not work so got thinking and tryed reinstalling them from within KDE. Now it works and it looks pretty amazing gtk in KDE whent from looking way off to looking real sweet. Even if you dont use KDE you might want to try it in Gnome (it gets my vote)
http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/showimage.php?i=995&original=1&c=3

[Omnios]

Im trying to post an image here of GTK in KDE with that engine

http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/showimage.php?i=995&original=1&c=3

http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/showimage.php?i=995&original=1&c=3

[Omnios]

Woop you can get rounded top and window bottoms in KDE now Im alsmost tempted to use Kubuntu. Maybe when I get my Laptop that I have been waiting for over a year for lol.

Anyways was thinking and KDE kind of seems more appealing that Xp. Anywas this thread was started way back but must say my experience with the latest KDE laves me the impression that I would rather use it than XP.

Anyways currently I am comfortable with Gnome and will probably load KDE on another computer when I get one running