do you use a lightweight DE or WM on fast hardware

[wvmac]

Two questions:

1.Do you run a lightweight Desktop environment or window manager on your fast hardware?

2. Do you feel that the the large desktop environments take away from the experience of Linux.

Recently I switched to using IceWM on top of an Ubuntu installation instead of gnome. I also use Pcmanfm as file manager and sometimes for desktop icons. Using IceWM takes me back to when I first tried out linux.

IceWM installed on top of Ubuntu is a great combo. It is not as light on resources as it could be (I run the gnome services) but it is still lighter and it leaves more memory for my applications to use. I don't use lightweight applications since I have a "fast" machine. One thing I really like about Icewm is that it gets out of your way.

I like compiz but I think I like the minimalistic window manager better.

I would like to hear your experiences with lightweight desktops and window managers.

[LaRoza]

I have:

* 2.8 Ghz processor, dual core and 64 bit.
* 2.5 GB RAM
* Video that can handle Compiz and Aero with no trouble
* 22" monitor

I use:

* mc (filemanager)
* vim (editor)
* irssi (IRC)
* finch (IM)
* Opera (best browser)

My desktop used wmii (see my blog)

[smartboyathome]

Yes, I do. My desktop comp is plenty powerful to run Ubuntu+GNOME, but I feel like E17 is much smoother on it (and I play 3D games, so it helps give some resources back to the game, too). Funny thing is, I run Compiz+GNOME on my less powerful laptop. :lol:

[blithen]

Yep. My specs are plenty fine to run gnome. Though I use a lot of command line apps and run xfce.

[dashnak]

I do as well, I run openbox, and the only gnome service I run is the power manager, just because I've been to lazy to replace it.

[atomkarinca]

I'm running XFCE as DE and Thunar as file manager and my computer is flying. I love being able to do things the lightweight way.

[billgoldberg]

Two questions:

1.Do you run a lightweight Desktop environment or window manager on your fast hardware?

2. Do you feel that the the large desktop environments take away from the experience of Linux.

Recently I switched to using IceWM on top of an Ubuntu installation instead of gnome. I also use Pcmanfm as file manager and sometimes for desktop icons. Using IceWM takes me back to when I first tried out linux.

IceWM installed on top of Ubuntu is a great combo. It is not as light on resources as it could be (I run the gnome services) but it is still lighter and it leaves more memory for my applications to use. I don't use lightweight applications since I have a "fast" machine. One thing I really like about Icewm is that it gets out of your way.

I like compiz but I think I like the minimalistic window manager better.

I would like to hear your experiences with lightweight desktops and window managers.

I have compiz and gnome running on a 3Ghz dual core with 1gb ram and on ati drivers.

It's extremely fast and looks way better than those light weight manager.

Gnome with compiz goes as fast as xfce does on my desktop.

To answer your second question:

No they add to the experience. It's all about the choice.

[arkangel]

I work in a 10000-cpu/Montecito altix 4700 , We don't have actually a WM only the x server working and of course vi , emacs , and bash , sh , ksh etc ...

[FuturePilot]

No. I have powerful enough hardware, why not use it.

[chucky chuckaluck]

i have a 1.6ghz celeron processor with a gig of ram on my laptop. it's plenty to operate gnome-compiz, kde and whatever. i just don't like all that junk. i don't need it. i don't want to see it.


(edit: might have gotten a little too fired up there.)

[Gigamo]

Surely do. Specs in my sig, and I use only curses/terminal based apps aside from two or three (pidgin/firefox/thunar). Awesome as a window manager.

[Onyros]

I use Awesome on a Pentium M 2.0GHz (2MB L2 cache), and on a Pentium M 1.4GHz (1MB L2 cache), and they both could handle the more bloated WM's or DE's, so it's really a matter of taste (and functionality).

[LaRoza]

Surely do. Specs in my sig, and I use only curses/terminal based apps aside from two or three (pidgin/firefox/thunar). Awesome as a window manager.

Try finch and mc (IM and file manager), you might like them.

[aysiu]

I don't think the heavier desktop environments take away from the Linux experience, but I do like IceWM a lot. It's not overly complicated, and it's very responsive.

[cardinals_fan]

My system specs are in my signature, except for the soon-to-be-upgraded 1 gig of RAM. I use Openbox (formerly Xfce), both for its speed and its sensibility. I actually found GNOME/KDE hard to use and even harder to configure.

[Hells_Dark]

I've go big specs and enjoy gnome+compiz.
But i use a lot of cli apps (and a lot of commands) like rtorrent anc ncmpc, not because they're fast but because they're well integrated to the desktop with tilda.
(and commands because it's far faster)
I tried some minimalistic wm, but i feel bad with them (i can't find the word i want).. and i love candy..

[blithen]

My system specs are in my signature, except for the soon-to-be-upgraded 1 gig of RAM. I use Openbox (formerly Xfce), both for its speed and its sensibility. I actually found GNOME/KDE hard to use and even harder to configure.

Yeah it seems it's hard to configure gnome. Even more so KDE.
Xfce is easy. Just it's kind of a long process to change the background. KNow how to speed the process up a bit?

[SomeGuyDude]

I like eye candy and my PC is powerful enough to run it all, so I lay it on thick.

[cardinals_fan]

Yeah it seems it's hard to configure gnome. Even more so KDE.
Xfce is easy. Just it's kind of a long process to change the background. KNow how to speed the process up a bit?
What do you mean by 'slow'?

[blithen]

What do you mean by 'slow'?
Slow? I never said it being slow. It's a long process. Can you edit the XFCE right click menu at all?

[ntowakbh]

I had at one point been considering using Fluxbox instead of GNOME. However, fluxbox didn't seem to like rhythmbox that much. Does anyone know of a lightweight equivalent to rhythmbox?

[gn2]

Can you edit the XFCE right click menu at all?

Yes, it's fully customisable.

I use Xfce on a Core 2 Duo E6300 PC, I just prefer it.

[cardinals_fan]

Slow? I never said it being slow. It's a long process. Can you edit the XFCE right click menu at all?
I'm seriously losing it. You never did say slow...

As for the right click menu, it CAN be edited, including adding subcategories. Follow the instructions at http://wiki.xfce.org/faq#menu. If you do this, be aware that you will NOT have new installed apps added to the menu by default. They're really easy to add using the GUI menu editor, but it's still worth considering. Alternatively, edit the xml file at /home/whatever/.config/xfce4/desktop/menu.xml. I find this method better, it is more like the Openbox way.

Speaking of which, you might be interested in Openbox. It's blown me away... :)

[NightwishFan]

I like fluxbox and jwm, otherwise I am generally using Gnome, Kde is too buggy.

[omns]

Question 1: No
Question 2: No

[Triggerhapp]

I dont use a DE or what people would even admit to calling a WM! ;)
Compiz running bare with xfdesktop4 to give me a background and menu, AWN for taskbar (no launchers), stalonetray and conky
:D Light, yet very effective.

[blithen]

Yes, it's fully customisable.

I use Xfce on a Core 2 Duo E6300 PC, I just prefer it.

Oh nice. Thanks!

[omns]

I dont use a DE or what people would even admit to calling a WM! ;)
Compiz running bare with xfdesktop4 to give me a background and menu, AWN for taskbar (no launchers), stalonetray and conky
:D Light, yet very effective.

I'd like to see a screenshot of this. sounds interesting.

[Trail]

KDE without effects, and without compiz. On a 2.2Ghz dual core, 2gigs RAM.

It's feeling very light. I hit for example System Settings and it loads instantly. Web pages and the like also render faster.

I liked random effects for a while, but compiz et al are a bit counter-productive. I have had a compiz set up with minimal settings on that I could describe as non-intrusive so I could focus on actually working, but it was feeling a little slower.

[bigbrovar]

i actuall have two user accounts.. the first one uses gnome ( as desfault DE ).. plus all the bling ,compiz,AWN,screenlets.. and it is heavily moded and hacked to have the most appealing look u can get on a PC ... the other account i use LXDE (as Defualt) very very very fast ... everything opens at the speed of thought .. and its very bare no startups , no compiz .. so bootup time is like 3 sec .. i use it when i have serious work to do .. like video editing an stuff.
I think my lappy is powerful enough to run anything linux has to offer 2.gb ram,Nvidia 8400 ,core2duo 2.0 ghz .. 160gb ... even when i run gnome and all its blings its still faster than anything u can get on windows xp or vista .. it just that sometime i want my lappy to be annoyingly fast :) i

[kpkeerthi]

No. I have plenty of CPU/GPU power and RAM. I find GNOME + Compiz (flashy effects turned off) giving me the best overall desktop experience.

[xpod]

I`ve not had the time to play around as much recently but i do have Xubuntu on my own CD2 with it`s 2G of ram........3/4 of which is probably never used:?
NIce n fast on older hardware and superfast on new hardware.
I do have Ubuntu Hardy over on this machines other drive too though.

To be perfectly honest i dont even know why i bothered buying new hardware for myself because all the old stuff was/is just as good for my needs.:)

New stuff looks better i suppose but still.
Could`nt go back to the old CRT`s mind you,i do like my two big TFT`s.

[Freddy]

My desktop:
AMD64 X2 6000+
3GB OCZ Titanium PC2-6400 800Mhz
MSI Geforce 8800GTS (OC) 640MB
WDC 520MB 7200rpm 16MB S-ATA2

I use OzOS which uses Enlightenment17. I don't really need to use a light DE or WM but I have fallen in love :).

[Pogeymanz]

I usually prefer XFCE. I just like the way they do things over there.

I've tried fluxbox and icewm on older hardware and they were pretty good, but if a computer can handle XFCE, I rather use it.

I use KDE at work which is really good for work because I don't have any desire to tweak things on a work computer anyway.

[herbster]

Q6600, 4gb ram, 8800GT 512, 26"+24" monitors and I use fluxbox exclusively.

[wvmac]

@LaRoza wmii looks cool. I'm going to have to try it out soon.


Thanks for all of the responses. Some of you have some fast hardware and yet still prefer a simple window manager.
Thanks for the combinations of wm's and apps to use for a minimalistic setup.

[LaRoza]

@LaRoza wmii looks cool. I'm going to have to try it out soon.



It is cool. Only cool people use it.

[myusername]

I have a pentium 4 2ghz 512 ram intel onboard 64mb video and I switch between fluxbox,xfce and gnome

[go_beep_yourself]

I like Joe's Window Manager aka JWM a lot, compiled the latest version and added it to the sessions list in GDM, though I think I had a few sound issues with it. It's the default WM in Puppy Linux, very nice and snappy.

[jimi_hendrix]

im thinking of starting to uses either fluxbox or a tiling wm...i like the look of simplicity

[K.Mandla]

I only use lightweight window managers, regardless of the hardware. I've put Openbox and IceWM and even JWM on machines as slow as 75Mhz and as fast as dual Xeon Pentium 4s.

Personally, I'd rather not have a "desktop environment" impeding the work I want to do with my computer.

[mojoman]

My tune is to keep the ground support light and nimble and if I want to squander my system resources I do it on a specific task (i.e. fluxbox and pcmanfm to get a GUI going but if I need to write a document I don't mind using OO).

[bp1509]

d

[crimesaucer]

I have 4GB of RAM, on a AMD Turion 64X2 TL-60, I had gnome and compiz-fusion on it and it worked good, no complaints......


..... but then I went back to using xfce4 and compiz-fusion and everything feels super fast. I prefer Thunar and xfce4 Terminal, and the xfce4 right click menu is so much nicer to have. (I also built xfce4 from source using my cflags.... as well as the rest of my system).


This is my xfce4 desktop with compiz-fusion/emerald and the murrine-svn:

http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr169/Arch-newb/Screenshot-53-1.png

Large View: http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr169/Arch-newb/Screenshot-53.png

[spupy]

I use Fluxbox on my weak laptop. I would use it this even if I got super-duper hardware. This is my choice because for workflow Fluxbox offers me more features than Gnome/Metacity. Gnome and KDE feel kind of grandma-ish - Fluxbox does the funky stuff I like. (About compiz - xcompmgr gives me enough.)

[~LoKe]

Running AwesomeWM on my rig with a Q6600, 4GB of ram, etc. I just prefer the look/feel.

[Koori23]

The most I've ever seen my desktop use was 686MB out of 1 Gig of available RAM. 38MB was used for swap at that time. That was a one time deal, normally, I'm only using 300MB-400MB at max.

I use XFCE on a somewhat crappy Dell Dimension desktop from 2004. It as fast or faster than XP in certain operations. I have XFCE's compositor on while using a Nvidia 62000 PCI video card..

It does what I want it too. If I buy a Gig of Ram, I want the system to use it..

[OutOfReach]

I have a Pentium M at 1.86 GHz with 1GB of ram and I use Openbox.
While using my everyday applications (that I used to use with GNOME) it never goes over 400MB, compared to GNOME's 500-600MB usage.

[tgellen]

Yes I do, life too short to waiting for your PC to catch up with you :)

I've a dual core AMD x2 1.6GHz, 2Gb RAM laptop and run LXDE (from the LXDE PPA) and Openbox, although I'm tempted to try Compiz-Fusion as my WM given the nVidia Geforce Go 7300 in my laptop can run Compiz quite smoothly on a full GNOME desktop.

When Firefox starts in 2 seconds you can't really complain.

[ODF]

I love openbox but there's some features I can't quit on compiz. So I run openbox in gnome =/

[karellen]

no, why should I if my hardware is good enough? I mainly use KDE with all its apps, without desktop effects

[Heinzelotto]

I use Awesome WM on Arch Linux -> pure power!
I don't use any filemanagers etc. though, i try to accomplish as much tasks as possible by using the commandline.