FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


KDE vs. GNOME vs. XFCE





Fire Boar
Simple. Which do you prefer, and what would you say the perks of each are?

For me, it boils down to:

GNOME: Simple to use, good defaults, nice desktop effects.
KDE: Extremely powerful, everything works very nicely together, nice K Menu.
XFCE: Simple, reliable, fast.

Also... KDE 3.5 vs. KDE 4.1. Here, I much prefer KDE 3.5 - right now, KDE 4 just doesn't seem quite ready yet. It lacks a few features in 3.5 and tends to be pretty slow. Still, it's nice if your computer can handle it. It is improving though, for example, the network manager program in Kubuntu 8.10 is without peer the easiest application around for laptop users who need multiple connections depending on where they are, DHCP for some, static IP configuration for others. And the sound management is spot on.

Thoughts?
Peterssidan
I havn't used XFCE at all so I can't say anything about it. I have not used KDE very much but I don't like the look. GNOME is.. well ... I have use the others too little to actually compare it to GNOME. GNOME is what I use and I like how its look and it's stable enough.
Helios
I've been a KDE user for many years, but recently switched to GNOME.
KDE 4 failed for me. Didn't like it at all, so I just installed GNOME!
The last time I used GNOME, it was ugly and featureless, but the new GNOME rocks Very Happy

XFCE - never was my favorite. A little bit too simple!
ocalhoun
XFCE and similar ones- I would use them quite gladly for a server because of their small resource footprint, but they lack too many features for everyday use.

KDE- my absolute favorite, in addition to the things you mentioned, it is prettier, more customizable, and has more handy applets than GNOME

GNOME- Always hated using it... I never could get used to the differences and lacks it has compared to KDE.
Fire Boar
Apparently the latest version of Nautilus sports a tab-based file browsing interface at last, which should be a great boon to the GNOME kit. I wonder when (if ever) Windows Explorer is going to follow suit? It's such a convenient feature, as Konqueror users know.

That's another thing about KDE: Konqueror. For those who don't know, it's basically the Swiss Army Knife of KDE. It does just about everything. File management, web browsing, plain text editing, PDF viewing, image viewing, bluetooth, NFS and Samba networking, FTP, manpage viewing, and more. All of these features apart from web browsing work extremely well - the KHTML plugin needs some work though: more complicated webpages such as GMail don't render too well with it. Still, what's Firefox for?
assailant
I have always used KDE, primarily because I develop applications using the Qt framework. Other than that, I have never really had any encounters with Linux as such. XFCE, as my knowledge guess is meant for low system requirements and higher performance over eye candy. GNOME looks sleek and stylish, but somehow lacks usability as compared to KDE [this is my opinion, and most of them disagree with me].
jackill
XFCE is fastest (but grows bigger and slower), Gnome is somewhere in the middle, KDE is very eye-candy and a little slower than GNOME. I used XFCE very often, because of it's performance. Linux gives ability to use all of them at one instalation (session switching).
riccopt
I used to be a big fan of GNOME... but KDE seems to be a lot better these days...
KHO
I go for gnome every time, KDE came with a few too many bugs for me, and gnome uses a lot less resources.
hofodomo01
KDE or XFCE might be a little better on older machines, but so far GNOME provides the most varied and efficient graphical desktop. Personally, I use fluxbox, but if I had to pick one of the above 3, I'd go with GNOME (though I like XFCE's thunar better than nautilus).
Bondings
I'm using KDE at the moment, more specifically kde 4.1. I'm using it on Mandriva, which has one of the best implementations of kde 4.1. But even then, it still has a lot of problems compared to 3.5. But it's the future and really not that bad as some people say. It seems to be doing its job pretty well at the moment.

Oh and I didn't like Konqueror from KDE, but as a file manager it's been replaced by Dolphin in KDE 4, which is way better. (Konqueror is still there though, just not the default for files)

The reason I use KDE is rather subjective. I didn't like the look, feel and use of GNOME so I switched to KDE a long time ago. And since then I never tried it again since I'm mostly happy with KDE. XFCE is pretty good, but a bit too light weight for me.
LostOverThere
I think the main problem for KDE is it isn't the one and only default for any main distribution. For instance, both Ubuntu and Debian have GNOME as their default desktops and even Mandriva who incorporates KDE offers GNOME as well which I don't feel does KDE much justice. However, that being said, Mandriva does do some nice things and it implants KDE4 for the most part fairly well.

As for me, I'm a GNOME user (ex KDE user). It was quite interesting for me, I tried GNOME a very long time ago, and decided it was too simple. I then moved to KDE3.5 later and absolutely loved it. However, shortly afterwards a friend enticed me back to GNOME and I've never left since. I think KDE4 is an amazing desktop yet I don't feel its quite ready yet (however, that being said I'm yet to try 4.2).

So until then, I'm sticking with GNOME. Smile
Studio Madcrow
I've always been a KDE person. but as I started playing with OpenSolaris (which uses GNOME), I've come to appreciate just how nice GNOME can be made if an OS or distribution maker really puts in a bit of time.
Fire Boar
Bondings wrote:
Oh and I didn't like Konqueror from KDE, but as a file manager it's been replaced by Dolphin in KDE 4, which is way better. (Konqueror is still there though, just not the default for files)


Interesting. I never understood the decision to replace Konqueror with Dolphin as the default KDE file manager, because I always saw Konqueror as a far superior application, with all its additional functionality, tabs and so on. This is just me, but after using Konqueror I now simply can't stand to use a file manager that doesn't implement tabs, and yet Dolphin lacks this feature.

Now, I appreciate that for some people tabs are not the be-all and end-all. But I have yet to find a feature in Dolphin that isn't included in Konqueror, apart from the "click on a location in the address bar to jump instantly there" which is pretty neat, but almost as easy via click-select-delete of the relevant parts.

So can somebody please inform me: what does Dolphin have that makes it so much better?
LostOverThere
That's actually a very interesting question Fire Boar. I for one prefer Dolphin over Konqueror as I always felt Konqueror was just to complex and advanced. It had too many features for my liking. Then again, I suppose that's why I like GNOME more.

Also, check this out from the Dolphin website.
Dolphin Website wrote:
Konqueror acts as universal viewer being able to show HTML pages, text documents, directories and a lot more, whereas Dolphin focuses on being only a file manager. This approach allows to optimize the user interface for the task of file management.
Bondings
Fire Boar wrote:
Bondings wrote:
Oh and I didn't like Konqueror from KDE, but as a file manager it's been replaced by Dolphin in KDE 4, which is way better. (Konqueror is still there though, just not the default for files)


Interesting. I never understood the decision to replace Konqueror with Dolphin as the default KDE file manager, because I always saw Konqueror as a far superior application, with all its additional functionality, tabs and so on. This is just me, but after using Konqueror I now simply can't stand to use a file manager that doesn't implement tabs, and yet Dolphin lacks this feature.

Now, I appreciate that for some people tabs are not the be-all and end-all. But I have yet to find a feature in Dolphin that isn't included in Konqueror, apart from the "click on a location in the address bar to jump instantly there" which is pretty neat, but almost as easy via click-select-delete of the relevant parts.

So can somebody please inform me: what does Dolphin have that makes it so much better?

Like LostOverThere said, it's definitely not the features, but rather a lack of features and a better focus. What I need is a file manager and not a web browser, media player or similar things. If I want to surf, I use FireFox. If I want to see a movie, I use Kmplayer, vlc or Kaffeine.

When I open Dolphin, it opens way faster than Konqueror. It displays all the drives/disks and locations like home and trash in big icons on the right side, which is exactly what I need. I can even unmount a disk to safely remove it.

And about tabs, when I click on CTRL+T, a new tab opens with the same directory as I'm currently using. Maybe you tried a previous version which didn't have tabs yet?
Fire Boar
Bondings wrote:
And about tabs, when I press CTRL+T, a new tab opens with the same directory as I'm currently using. Maybe you tried a previous version which didn't have tabs yet?


That's probably it. I see what you mean - I personally only use the embedded PDF, image viewing and FTP features aside from file browsing on a regular basis... and tabs of course. Firefox really has no peer in internet surfing (though konqueror can be slightly quicker and more flexible with built-in ability to pretend to be a different user-agent).

Once KDE 4.2 is out I'll certainly give Dolphin another try (along with KDE 4).
ocalhoun
Confused
The lack of features an advantage?
Sorry, but I'm not a fan of such 'user friendly' things at all. It reminds me of Windows ME's 'user friendliness'. I find it no trouble at all to ignore features I don't need at the moment, especially when there are rare times that I do want them.
KHO
Fire Boar wrote:
Bondings wrote:
Oh and I didn't like Konqueror from KDE, but as a file manager it's been replaced by Dolphin in KDE 4, which is way better. (Konqueror is still there though, just not the default for files)


Interesting. I never understood the decision to replace Konqueror with Dolphin as the default KDE file manager, because I always saw Konqueror as a far superior application, with all its additional functionality, tabs and so on. This is just me, but after using Konqueror I now simply can't stand to use a file manager that doesn't implement tabs, and yet Dolphin lacks this feature.

Now, I appreciate that for some people tabs are not the be-all and end-all. But I have yet to find a feature in Dolphin that isn't included in Konqueror, apart from the "click on a location in the address bar to jump instantly there" which is pretty neat, but almost as easy via click-select-delete of the relevant parts.

So can somebody please inform me: what does Dolphin have that makes it so much better?


This is the one thing I miss about KDE in my gnome install. I am so used to Total commander in windows that Konqueror really helped me transition because you can configure it to leek and operate the exact same as total commander (elder names are Midnight commander, norton commander....)
Bondings
ocalhoun wrote:
Confused
The lack of features an advantage?
Sorry, but I'm not a fan of such 'user friendly' things at all. It reminds me of Windows ME's 'user friendliness'. I find it no trouble at all to ignore features I don't need at the moment, especially when there are rare times that I do want them.

It doesn't lack any features to manage files, at least not that I can think of. I meant that it lacks features that are not its purpose. It's not like the Swiss army knife that Konqueror is. But this causes a lot of bloat/slowliness in my opinion.

If you have a car, it most likely lacks the feature to fly. But that's what planes are for. If you have a car that's also able to fly, then most likely way heavier (uses more fuel) and way harder to drive. Having both a plane and a car would be way better and easier.
KHO
However, if you had a car that could fly you could easily commute without the necessity of waiting in traffic or a runway. Thats a win right there.
mOrpheuS
ocalhoun wrote:
Confused
The lack of features an advantage?



note - The blue-bar is apparently a feature.

I would be much happier if that bar was completely removed from my filemanager - if it were lacking this particular feature.

I don't use that blue bar ever ! and there is no way to turn it off ...
I also don't "Print" my Nero Data Disc compilations very often, you know. Wink
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Confused
The lack of features an advantage?
Sorry, but I'm not a fan of such 'user friendly' things at all. It reminds me of Windows ME's 'user friendliness'. I find it no trouble at all to ignore features I don't need at the moment, especially when there are rare times that I do want them.

It doesn't lack any features to manage files, at least not that I can think of. I meant that it lacks features that are not its purpose. It's not like the Swiss army knife that Konqueror is. But this causes a lot of bloat/slowliness in my opinion.

If you have a car, it most likely lacks the feature to fly. But that's what planes are for. If you have a car that's also able to fly, then most likely way heavier (uses more fuel) and way harder to drive. Having both a plane and a car would be way better and easier.

^.^
That's why I drive a jeep...
It is heavier, it does use way more fuel, and it is way harder to drive... but it is much more versatile than an ordinary car.
{name here}
I was always fond of the "worse is better" mentality. KDE, XFCE, and GNOME are nice desktops, but I don't like them as much as I like rio or Fluxbox. Rio is small enough and versitile enough to run itself inside itself in one mouse flick and four keystrokes (or just one mouse flick depending on if you already have rio typed somewhere else. In either case this is using no customization). With the acme text editor out, rio is a really nice and powerful too. Fluxbox just has elegant simplicity which gives it a small memory footprint while still giving an appealing, customizable look.
chevaliers-citadelle
Gnome : great;
Kde : don't like it at all. It hurts my eyes;
Xfce : nice, but i prefer Gnome
MEHALA
Fire Boar wrote:
Simple. Which do you prefer, and what would you say the perks of each are?

For me, it boils down to:

GNOME: Simple to use, good defaults, nice desktop effects.
KDE: Extremely powerful, everything works very nicely together, nice K Menu.
XFCE: Simple, reliable, fast.

Also... KDE 3.5 vs. KDE 4.1. Here, I much prefer KDE 3.5 - right now, KDE 4 just doesn't seem quite ready yet. It lacks a few features in 3.5 and tends to be pretty slow. Still, it's nice if your computer can handle it. It is improving though, for example, the network manager program in Kubuntu 8.10 is without peer the easiest application around for laptop users who need multiple connections depending on where they are, DHCP for some, static IP configuration for others. And the sound management is spot on.

Thoughts?


Hi ! Sow i have a question in this topic beacuse i like , and i want to learne ubuntu,xubuntu,kubuntu? Sow wich is wich cause i dont understan thys kde ; xfce ; etc.
Thanks !
Bondings
MEHALA wrote:
Hi ! Sow i have a question in this topic beacuse i like , and i want to learne ubuntu,xubuntu,kubuntu? Sow wich is wich cause i dont understan thys kde ; xfce ; etc.
Thanks !

Ubuntu uses GNOME, Xubuntu uses XFCE and Kubuntu uses KDE. But once you install one version you can also install the other desktop managers to test them out. It's simply the default one installed from the cd.
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:
MEHALA wrote:
Hi ! Sow i have a question in this topic beacuse i like , and i want to learne ubuntu,xubuntu,kubuntu? Sow wich is wich cause i dont understan thys kde ; xfce ; etc.
Thanks !

Ubuntu uses GNOME, Xubuntu uses XFCE and Kubuntu uses KDE. But once you install one version you can also install the other desktop managers to test them out. It's simply the default one installed from the cd.

'Course, when you install SuSE, you can install a dozen different desktop managers, and use any of them for the first boot...
I really don't see why everyone likes Ubuntu so much. What's so great about it?
Bondings
ocalhoun wrote:
'Course, when you install SuSE, you can install a dozen different desktop managers, and use any of them for the first boot...
I really don't see why everyone likes Ubuntu so much. What's so great about it?

Ubuntu isn't that bad. It just looks ugly. And since it has a lot of users, it's easier to find a solution to a problem online.

Anyway, I use Mandriva and I'm not really a fan of Ubuntu either. Wink
Fire Boar
ocalhoun wrote:
'Course, when you install SuSE, you can install a dozen different desktop managers, and use any of them for the first boot...
I really don't see why everyone likes Ubuntu so much. What's so great about it?


The defaults look pretty bad, especially vanilla ubuntu. Kubuntu not so much, and you can easily customize it (as with all KDE distros) to look just how you want it to. And Gnome, actually, though it's not as powerful.

The trouble with having lots of options on installing is you generally need to download a very large image (unless you happen to have a free DVD from somewhere, then it's all good). I'm not a great fan of whopping great huge downloads.

Okay, slight diversion. I've used something that's apparently quite similar to Fluxbox called GeoShell for Windows. Now, being Windows I appreciate it won't be anything like as powerful, themeable or customizable (though it's far more flexible than Windows Explorer) BUT... where is the great appeal to using Flux/Black/anythingbox? Apart from its relative compactness I mean.
sheedatali
I have used all three of them and some more. IMHO, Gnome is the best one, it is the good, stable, balanced Desktop Environment. KDE is in terms of features is way ahead of Gnome, however I find it bloated and very too complex with too many feature. It is my personal opinion. Gnome is much more balanced compromise bw Feature Rich Desktop and Light. XFCE is purely the other end of scale, where speed is more important, however amazingly it manages to be very simple and effective desktop too. It XFCE had as much development force behind it as Gnome has then I think it would be a better choice over Gnome.
adheus
Gnome is the best one in the arranged kind, but KDE is the best in visual and custom, never used XFCE, no comments about it..
Peterssidan
I am now using Xfce4 on my laptop. The best thing is that it's lightweight. I can't decide if I like Gnome or Xfce most. They are a little different but both are good.
babygeek
I prefer KDE. very sleek. although must admit there seem to be more GNOME (third-party) apps around...
tiagoeq
I prefer KDE, but the others are good too
Related topics
My new Debian Sarge with KDE 3.3(stable i'm afraid)
The lightest Linux
Which Linux distribution is the best?
Your favourite graphical environment :)
Ubuntu
What is your Desktop ?
a linux based OS for an old computer
KDE or Gnome
Common Interfaces for Gnome and KDE Released
Beryl
Linux sur un laptop PII ?
User Friendly Linux?
openSUSE 10.3!!!
Linux distro comparison (Fedora vs. Mandriva vs. OpenSuse)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.