I'm using KDE 4.3.3 in current, and whilst it is stable it still feels a bit sluggish, especially with 3D applications such as foobillard, in fact I have to turn down the graphic options.

So I had another look at lightweight desktops. This time it was LXDE, downloaded from Alien Bob's package site, and openbox. It loaded fast, really fast, and seemed to work quite well. Then I noticed an option in the session chooser of KDM "KDE/OpenBox", so I tried it.

KDE still takes about 10 seconds to launch, BUT, it is not sluggish, 3D apps running properly.

I wonder if it is just me, or if it would be best to run KDE with OpenBox.

samac

In my opinion you should go for LXDE.

EDIT:
I tried it before, i like it very much, just not enough to replace my Fluxbox System.
i feel you should definitely give Fluxbox a try.

I'm not actually unhappy with KDE it's still, in my opinion, the best of the desktop environments, however it does need a bit of a speed up and using the OpenBox window manager seems to do this.

samac

Some time ago I also discovered Openbox. At that time I liked it very much, because it was fast and lightweight, easier to configure than Fluxbox and FVWM2 (at that time, at least) and had no unwished dependencies (GTK or something). Recently I gave it a shot again, this time with KDE, and it was a good experience, again. Stable and fast.

I just wonder: What does the KDE window manager do, that Openbox does not?
In other words: What reasons are there, to stick with the default, instead of replacing it with Openbox?
Does any know about the technical differences, and can provide a quick summary?

So far it seems to me that Openbox can be configured to do just about everything that the KDE default window manager can do...

Or are the incompatibilities to be expected, e. g., with Plasmoids or something?

gargamel

It seems to disable the 3D desktop effects, but this is not important for me, and the transparency of the panel has gone, again not important. I haven't found a show stopper yet.

samac