Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back > Forums > 2004 Members Choice Awards
User Name
2004 Members Choice Awards This forum is for the 2004 Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2004. This is your chance to be heard! Voting closes on February 3rd.


View Poll Results: Desktop Environment of the Year
Gnome 491 30.92%
KDE 925 58.25%
GNUstep 17 1.07%
XFCE 154 9.70%
Ximian 1 0.06%
Voters: 1588. You may not vote on this poll

  Search this Thread
Old 01-11-2005, 10:11 PM   #106
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: Debian, Gentoo, OpenBSD, Slackware
Posts: 32

Rep: Reputation: 15

KDE can be somewhat bloated, though you thankfully can ditch most of the crap. My biggest complaint is the graphical design. First off, the default theme is utter crap. For that matter I've yet to find a theme that I really like.
Secondly, I think that most qt programs have poor layouts. For an example, I personally like having text instead of just icons. With something like kwrite I don't like having icons for the save buttons and such. But, wait, you could add text along with, or replacing the icons when you configure the bar. The only problem is the text is so verbose that you'd need to maximize the application to be able to see all the commands.

In the end window managers are what I always go back to. I do like some of the ideas that *STEP has. Now only if they developed at a reasonable pace...
Old 01-12-2005, 12:36 AM   #107
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,161
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 136Reputation: 136
I have 512 MB RAM. You don't need 1 GB RAM people to have KDE!
Old 01-12-2005, 03:26 AM   #108
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Long Island, NY USA
Distribution: Fedora Core 3, Ubuntu Hoary
Posts: 53

Rep: Reputation: 15
Originally posted by Harishankar
I have 512 MB RAM. You don't need 1 GB RAM people to have KDE!
And you don't need 512MB to run something like xfce4 as your DE. And many wm are so competent its no wonder so many folks don't bother with a DE at all. BUT....., it's all about choice ;-)
Old 01-12-2005, 04:21 AM   #109
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,161
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 136Reputation: 136
Originally posted by ratpoison
And you don't need 512MB to run something like xfce4 as your DE. And many wm are so competent its no wonder so many folks don't bother with a DE at all. BUT....., it's all about choice ;-)
There is a separate category for WMs anyway.
Old 01-12-2005, 04:43 AM   #110
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Tampere, Finland
Distribution: Debian, Familiar, OS X
Posts: 145

Rep: Reputation: 16
i have only tried kde and gnome, so i choose from them: gnome. itīs quite similar in philosophy to os x, simple and pretty.
Old 01-12-2005, 04:48 AM   #111
Senior Member
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
I've been biting down on it with the memory usage of KDE. I don't know where people get their information, but when I run KDE with eye candy on (on my Duron 800, no powerhouse), it uses about 80mb of RAM. I have 384 mb in my system and it alsmost never uses my itty bitty 256mb swap partition. I have to have quite a few apps open before it consumes enough to do that (which is why I made such a small partition for swap). I don'tknow if this is a source vs binary thing or not, but that's one reason why I continue to use KDE over XFCE4 (which I'd get off my butt and configure if KDE let me down).
Old 01-12-2005, 05:00 AM   #112
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 51

Rep: Reputation: 24
kde when i want to use Kate, ude when i don't.
Old 01-12-2005, 05:29 AM   #113
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Gorredijk, Netherlands
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 400

Rep: Reputation: 30
Important points for me:

Fast, customizable.
Webbrowser == File Manager -> Bad Idea, and the fact that changing the default browser is difficult makes this a big dejavu
Konqueror configuration screen -> Yikes. Divide File Manager settings and Browser settings please.
GTK Apps (Firefox, Gaim, Azureus) -> Look horrible and run slow, even with gtkqt-engine whatever (nice attempt but still).
Toolbar configuration (especially in Konqueror) is very clunky. The fact that you can remove items from the bar that can't be put back is very bad.
Lots off I apps I don't need and want

Clean look and feel
Auto mount is sweet when it works
GConf -> Big mistake. Where have we seen it before?
Lack of options/preferences -> On purpose but it sucks
Slow... -> the smooth gtk theming engine makes it faster but I couldn't find a decent theme for it
No good dvd/cd burner software.

Clean look and fast
No unnecessary features but also lacks some useful ones.
File manager sucks but can be replaced with Rox-filer pretty good
Customizable menus and I love the desktop right click menu

So KDE is unusable for me. I usually bounce between Gnome and XFCE. I voted XFCE because the new 4.2 has lots of improvement.

Last edited by Haiyadragon; 01-12-2005 at 05:31 AM.
Old 01-13-2005, 10:53 AM   #114
Registered: Jul 2004
Distribution: Slackware Current
Posts: 308

Rep: Reputation: 30
GNOME .... almost voted for XFCE though.
Old 01-13-2005, 10:46 PM   #115
LQ Newbie
Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 27

Rep: Reputation: 15
gnome is the best ........ keyboard shortcuts are cool....
Old 01-14-2005, 10:07 AM   #116
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Distribution: Mandriva 2007
Posts: 94

Rep: Reputation: 15
I love KDE

Old 01-14-2005, 11:24 AM   #117
LQ Guru
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 75
I don't know why people complain that KDE is bloated, you are not forced to install all the packages that come with KDE, you can choose individual packages (if your distro permits it, coz I know Slack installs all packages in a group) making your KDE installation very customised. As for memory usage when my main PC was on the blinkers due to a RAM problem, I managed to run KDE on 128 megs of pc2100 ddr ram on an Athlon XP 2000 machine. It was a bit sluggish, coz I usually have a lot of apps running at the same time, but it still worked fine. Frankly I don't see much difference in speed when I am running GNOME or KDE on the same machine, however when I run fluxbox or XFCE, then I notice a difference.
Old 01-14-2005, 11:34 AM   #118
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: Ubuntu 4.10
Posts: 30

Rep: Reputation: 15
Originally posted by OSourceDiplomat
Gnome 2.8 in Ubuntu is so sweet. I'll admit that XFCE has come along way, though.
Yup !!!
Old 01-14-2005, 10:59 PM   #119
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: North Carolina
Distribution: Linspire, Mepis, Kanotix, PCLinuxOS
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
I like KDE the best...Its more "Windows" like...
Gnome is good also...Its kinds reminds me of a Mac!
XFCE...I never really used it..but i will give it a try.
Old 01-15-2005, 05:02 PM   #120
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jul 2003
Distribution: RedHat Linux 9
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
Gnome for ever.


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
Which desktop environment do you use? dinolinux General 13 10-01-2005 03:10 AM
Why use a Desktop Environment? bb-boy Linux - General 19 02-10-2002 10:32 PM > Forums > 2004 Members Choice Awards

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 PM.

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