LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Desktop
User Name
Password
Linux - Desktop This forum is for the discussion of all Linux Software used in a desktop context.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-25-2011, 03:41 AM   #1
flebber
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Distribution: debian stable
Posts: 394

Rep: Reputation: 30
LXDE vs XFCE


LXDE has greatly gained in popularity lately but I wondered what advantages it would have over XFCE. Wouldn't they both use about the same resources both being more economical than KDE/gnome.

XFCE I would think has maturity on its side but beyond that are they both competing for the same market space? why should I choose one over he other?

Edit why does fluxbox not get a look in really.

Last edited by flebber; 08-25-2011 at 04:38 AM.
 
Old 08-25-2011, 05:13 AM   #2
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 6,571

Rep: Reputation: 580Reputation: 580Reputation: 580Reputation: 580Reputation: 580Reputation: 580
XFCE has matured, not entirely to my taste, although I use it. LXDE looks nice.

For me, a significant factor is familiarity. Every time some dweeb "Revamps the front end" all the users are at sixes and sevens until they find where things have been hidden this time. What has LXDE got that makes it worth the ever increasing pain of changing?
 
Old 08-25-2011, 07:01 AM   #3
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Both LXDE and fluxbox would be lighter than XFCE. XFCE would be lighter than the bloated GNOME and KDE.
 
Old 08-25-2011, 09:28 AM   #4
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904
Lxde is slightly lighter than Xfce in my experience, but not enough lighter to bother with. If I'm installing on a system without much RAM, and Xfce might use a bit much, I load up one of the *box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
LXDE looks nice.
Its always reminded me of WinXP. I'm not sure why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Both LXDE and fluxbox would be lighter than XFCE. XFCE would be lighter than the bloated GNOME and KDE.
Xfce can be made to use more RAM on boot, idling, than KDE 4.X or gnome.

I was shocked at how much RAM some of the xubuntu versions used. I've seen 200MB+ used on boot, ilding with xubuntu. At the same time I had a KDE 4.X system that was using about 200MB of RAM in the same situation.
 
Old 08-25-2011, 12:36 PM   #5
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 6,571

Rep: Reputation: 580Reputation: 580Reputation: 580Reputation: 580Reputation: 580Reputation: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Its always reminded me of WinXP. I'm not sure why.
It's the crappy shade of 'BSOD Blue' that gives it a windows feel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
Xfce can be made to use more RAM on boot, idling, than KDE 4.X or gnome.
I was shocked at how much RAM some of the xubuntu versions used. I've seen 200MB+ used on boot, ilding with xubuntu. At the same time I had a KDE 4.X system that was using about 200MB of RAM in the same situation.
Unless you're into retro computing in a big way, 200MB on boot isn't disastrous. This 32 bit box has only 1 Gig, which is pitiable by modern standards, but on boot it always has 200MB to spare. What else is using ram on boot? Once loaded, I have xpdf, wine, OO, firefox, and a couple of other things going and it's no fuss, and no swap.

KDE IME runs at the same speed as an unsouped init, so it probably is doing things one at a time. KDE reminds me of vista with all bells & whistles working.
 
Old 08-25-2011, 04:01 PM   #6
DavidMcCann
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Salix
Posts: 3,190

Rep: Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814
I've found LXDE less easy to configure than Xfce — in some cases less easy than a window manager like Fluxbox, as the documentation is rather poor.

Contrary to what many think, Xfce is not really intended to be lightweight. In distros like Mint and Fedora, it takes much the same amount of memory as Gnome 2. But, unless you're talking about KDE, the distro is usually more relevant than the GUI: Mint running Xfce takes twice the memory that Yoper does!

Last edited by DavidMcCann; 08-28-2011 at 06:20 PM.
 
Old 08-25-2011, 07:11 PM   #7
flebber
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Distribution: debian stable
Posts: 394

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
I've found LXDE less easy to configure than Xfce in some cases less easy than a window manager like Fluxbox, as the documentation is rather poor.

Contrary to what many think, Xfce is not really intended to be lightweight. In distros like Mint and Fedora, it takes much the same amount of memory as Gnome 2. But, unless your talking about KDE, the distro is usually more relevant than the GUI: Mint running Xfce takes twice the memory that Yoper does!
Well I currently have mint installed using gnome. I was looking to do a debian install and go something lighter broadcom drivers are a concern to me as I have no hard wired conection. I had tried Mepis-antix and liked the feel of the distro but no the window manager so much as it uses icewm-Rox.

Both Kanotix and Mepis sport KDE which looks nice but is heavy and I end up basically feeling end up feeling let down. Gnome seems lighter to me especially gnome 3 though its not really supposed to be much lighter, I tried it with fedora and it was light and fast; though fedora is unstable and kept crashing(I didn't really need or want firefox 6 which is no the standard in 15).

I think I found a solution in the aptosid manual. Would be great if occasionally there could be an aptoWheezy release though as I don't need to be on unstable testing would be better.
Quote:
I found a reference on the aptosid manual http://manual.aptosid.com/en/nf-firm-en.htm#fw-detect Would this work with kanotix? Would this be what I would need to do?
Zitat:
Should you need to prefetch firmware .debs, to put on a usb-key to transfer the files to another computer, you can download them as either a zip or tar.gz file from http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unoff ... d/current/ and extract it to a folder called firmware, you should see a number of .deb files.

Next download http://packages.debian.org/sid/firmware-linux-free*.deb and add it to all the other debs in the folder you extracted the non-free firmware to. Then transfer them with the stick to the computer that needs the non-free firmware and:

dpkg -i firmware-linux-nonfree*.deb
 
Old 08-26-2011, 05:18 AM   #8
Ion Silverbolt
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: Gentoo/Xfce, Manjaro/Xfce, SolydXK
Posts: 194

Rep: Reputation: 36
Most people pick Lxde over Xfce either to save a few Mb's, or because they prefer pcmanfm over thunar as a file manager. Personally, I like thunar better, and also prefer the more updated Xfce and it's options over Lxde.

In reality, Lxde is not all that much lighter than Xfce. Most base their perception of Xfce by what they see in Xubuntu. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it's a far cry from experiencing Xfce on a Gentoo or Arch system.

As for memory usage, my netbook running Gentoo fully booted uses 80 Mb's on a fresh boot. That's with Wicd, Tilda, and Conky running, as well as some tray applets. That's pretty damn light for something that can be called a Desktop Environment. In contrast, Firefox or Chrome easily uses more memory than the entire Xfce desktop suite.
 
Old 08-26-2011, 06:59 AM   #9
anticapitalista
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Greece
Distribution: antiX using herbstluftwm, i3, wmii, fluxbox, icewm and jwm.
Posts: 292

Rep: Reputation: 67
You could install xfce or lxde on antiX (full) or use the base or core versions and build upwards.
 
Old 08-26-2011, 08:21 AM   #10
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Wallowing in a pit of despair.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,347
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 396Reputation: 396Reputation: 396Reputation: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by flebber View Post
LXDE has greatly gained in popularity lately but I wondered what advantages it would have over XFCE. ... why should I choose one over he other?

Edit why does fluxbox not get a look in really.
Which one you choose would depend on what you want. In my opinion, LXDE looks nicer than XFCE, but lacks configuration choices. LXDE is not yet a finished product. So if you want lots of latitude for customising, XFCE is the best choice. If you do not care about customising and simply want a desktop that is easy to use and visually appealing, use LXDE.
Fluxbox, Openbox and similar DEs have not gained in popularity, because they are difficult to configure for novices. After installation, various functions must be configured using shell commands. After that, the user must create the desktop. So these "minimalist" desktops are only popular with people who have knowledge and like to build things from scratch. (Of course, others may disagree with my assessment.)
 
Old 08-26-2011, 08:30 AM   #11
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
It's the crappy shade of 'BSOD Blue' that gives it a windows feel.
I'll watch for that next time I install Lxde (that is not going to be anytime soon)

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Unless you're into retro computing in a big way, 200MB on boot isn't disastrous. This 32 bit box has only 1 Gig, which is pitiable by modern standards, but on boot it always has 200MB to spare. What else is using ram on boot? Once loaded, I have xpdf, wine, OO, firefox, and a couple of other things going and it's no fuss, and no swap.
I agree, 200MB on boot isnt that big an issue unless you are pretty light on RAM.

BTW, when I saw 200MB+ of RAM used at boot with xubuntu, that was with a 256MB system. The other system, running KDE 4.X, had 4GB

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
KDE reminds me of vista with all bells & whistles working.
Its not that bad. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ion Silverbolt View Post
In reality, Lxde is not all that much lighter than Xfce. Most base their perception of Xfce by what they see in Xubuntu. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it's a far cry from experiencing Xfce on a Gentoo or Arch system.
+1, though even debian Xfce is pretty light as well IMO.

At least xubuntu-desktop has gone on a bit of a diet, its not as fat as it has been in the past.

Last edited by cascade9; 08-26-2011 at 08:31 AM.
 
Old 08-26-2011, 09:48 AM   #12
rokytnji
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 13 , MacPup,Linux-Lite 2.0, SaliX
Posts: 2,801
Blog Entries: 18

Rep: Reputation: 901Reputation: 901Reputation: 901Reputation: 901Reputation: 901Reputation: 901Reputation: 901Reputation: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by anticapitalista View Post
You could install xfce or lxde on antiX (full) or use the base or core versions and build upwards.
Yep. Runs pretty light. I run Rox File Manager with pcmanfm since pcmanfm is pretty much siamesed in with LXDE in Debian. I am used to pcmanfm running with rox file manager in full AntiX iso i686 installs also. On another core install. I only run Rox file manager only.

My core iso install with LXDE only

http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/x...reeny/lxde.jpg

My other core install with Fluxbox only with LXPanel also.

http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/x...eenshot1-1.jpg

Both run Fast and are low on resources. LXDE took me some effort though to iron out certain bugs that seem to be inherent with Debian Testing version of LXDE, Once ironed out. It works OK. I do these things mostly as a learning exercise to better my knowledge with different ways to run a Linux Desktop. Gnome, KDE, XFCE may be easier to configure. But being a Biker. I like light weight vs heavy weight. Speed of Desktops matter also on my older gear. I like Icewm also better than XFCE. Just personal preference though. To each their own.
 
Old 08-27-2011, 03:00 AM   #13
flebber
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Distribution: debian stable
Posts: 394

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
I have got antiX installed and going. Still not really liking icewm though, however even though its somewhat odd I am not minding the feel of fluxbox although the ability to set some default applications I always use in the panel would be nice.
 
Old 08-27-2011, 03:47 AM   #14
EDDY1
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Location: Oakland,Ca
Distribution: wins7, Debian wheezy
Posts: 6,014

Rep: Reputation: 545Reputation: 545Reputation: 545Reputation: 545Reputation: 545Reputation: 545
Just to test different DE's I installed LXDE, XFCE Fluxbox & I liked the reponse times on my laptop,
As for Lxde & Xfce the tochpad doesn't work & it was enabled in configuration editor. But they were all faster than my gnome.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: What is the difference between GNOME, KDE, XFCE, and LXDE? LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-06-2011 11:41 AM
Xfce and LXDE Panel Menu Descriptions Woodsman Linux - Desktop 1 05-11-2011 05:56 PM
LXDE and XFCE are made for slower computers.... ciao303 Linux - Newbie 14 10-01-2010 01:51 AM
[SOLVED] Change from LXDE to XFCE---> Easy Way ? jv2112 Linux - Newbie 2 09-06-2010 06:01 PM
Xfce, Lxde rolandpish Linux - Desktop 14 07-22-2010 01:44 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration