Ok, sorry but it really annoys me when I see this posted.

There will be a new user, fresh off windows, asking for advice on what distro, DE, etc.

And people will reply "if you want something like windows, use KDE"

Honestly, just because KDE had a defalt setup similar to windows, does that really mean that it is easier for windows users?


The First linux that I ever used was Knoppix with kde
The first linux I ever installed was fedora 4 with gnome

I found Gnome more easy to use than kde.

KDE gave me so many options, and was quite crowded by defalt. Gnome, on the other hand seemed clear and stayed out of my way (was a way to run apps, nothing else).

So, for a long time, I continued to use Gnome.

But, I became curious, and tried out kde again. I found out that KDE could be whatever I wanted it to be. It was extreamly configurable, and had a setting for everything.

The thing that kept me using KDE however, was the power. When I began using linux I wanted to get in there and learn, use the command line, edit config files, etc. And that was great, I learned a lot about linux. But as I began using linux more for actual work, I wanted things to be quick and easy. KDE itself does so much more than any other DE. Also KDE is extreamly integrated, all its thousands of apps work well with each other and use the same libs, which decreases mem usage.


What I'm trying to get at here, is for people to stop simply reccomending KDE to newbies. A lot of the time, Gnome can be much easier.

I can't really judge, being I was never able to try Gnome; had problems right at startup preventing me from really using anything.
What's wrong with starting off with KDE though? I was a long term DOS/Windows user, like many others, and in under a year, I had tried mandrake/mandriva, under the KDE work station, and in a few months, Windows was tossed out and I was using mandriva and loving it a lot.
Maybe Gnome is more like windows, like I said, can't judge that, haven't been able to try it.

I happen to like some options, not just one thing here and there. It can be nice to have something else to see what that can do.

Well, all newbies aren't the same -- they're just new to linux. I'm sure some would like to start simply and learn as they go. Take a simple wm and a term, install what they want, write their own menus, read man pages, edit their own config files ... how is this so much harder than taming an enormous, monolithic desktop with complicated configs like kde and gnome, that don't always work as expected? In some cases (I'm not saying all cases) simpler is easier. It really depends on the person.

Fact is, a newbie's going to have to learn something, either the system or the layers of abstraction that the big desktops put on top of it.

For these reasons, I wouldn't automatically suggest either kde or gnome. Perhaps some newbies would like one or the other, but xfce is a simpler, leaner option that works well. Something like fluxbox could suit the more hands-on newbie. So there's no "best" choice for newbies imo.

Since this is not really a question, this thread has been moved to the General Forum.

When it comes right down to it, you need to just learn something. I don't know that it really matters what it is. You're going to have a mind-blowing experience either way.

I use KDE on my main desktop, but prefer the look and feel of fluxbox, so I set up my Kde to look and feel like fluxbox, ie: no 'k' menu, but rather a right-click on the desktop reveals my application menu. So, I guess my point is Kde is pretty standard out of the box but nothing stops you from making it look and act anyway you can imagine.

KDE is generally superior for users on all levels. Its has a centralized configuration. Easy intuitive menu editing. More eye candy. Better apps. Tabbed window browsing. Easy but still fairly comprehensive printer installation/configuration. Its clipboard/klipper utility is waay better than Gnome's. (Actually supports copy/pasting even from closed applications. something I did'nt get with Ubuntu/gnome out of the box.) Qt applications generally look better and run faster than their gtk counterparts. And last but certainly not certainly least.. its default icon set is prettier. KDE is the best. The best linuks software in the whole world.

As a very recent newbie, I think the KDE recommendation is a good one.

Windows is very different from Linux in more than just its command line syntax or the quirks of its gui. By design, Windows discourages users from dealing with their computers on any command-prompt level. Linux greatly encourages this, even requires it.

When I came to Linux, I didn't really know jack about the windows I had come from, because pretty gui tools had sheilded me from any real learning. I wasn't aware that there *was* anything under the gui. I didn't even learn the word "gui" untill I tried out Mandrake.

KDE defaults to a Windows-like feel. This is good for beginners who - like me- knew nothing but guis. If I had been dropped into WindowMaker, I would have given up. The environment would just have felt very foreign.

Now, I am far more familiar with linux. I work in the terminal, I understand what underlies the gui, and I prefer WindowMaker or Gnome. But I never would have gotten here without KDE.

This is a pet peeve of mine as well, and I see it all the time.

KDE is not more Windows-like than Gnome.

If you want to be perfectly honest, you should just tell new users Linux is not Windows and that Gnome and KDE have more in common with each other than either has in common with Windows.

Yes, KDE starts with one bar at the bottom and Gnome starts with a bar at the bottom and a bar at the top.

But...

1. KDE has a System Settings control area that's far more like OS X's System Preferences than Windows' Control Panel

2. KDE allows you to have a universal menu bar like OS X (which Gnome doesn't have)

3. Gnome's Windows themes look better (Smooth-XP, for example) than KDE's Redmond theme

4. KDE has a single-click default to open files--quite a bit different from Windows. Gnome defaults to da double-click.

On the other hand...

1. KDE uses an Apply for preference changes, whereas Gnome makes the changes right away (more Mac-like)

2. KDE gives you more configuration options in the GUI--a more Windows-like behavior--than Gnome

3. Linspire, the ultimate "Windows-like" distro uses KDE instead of Gnome

And ultimately...

1. KDE and Gnome both allow you to show or hide files on demand (in Windows and Mac, the process involves at least three clicks, if not some editing of config files)

2. KDE and Gnome both make no effort to hide the filesystem structure. In Windows, My Documents intends to hide the fact it's really C:\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents. In Mac, username is really /Users/username.

3. KDE and Gnome can both be easily themed and have icons changed with a few clicks--no hacks, no third party software.

4. Both KDE and Gnome can be made to look like Windows or Mac... or something else.

The emphasis should be on how Linux is a new experience, not how you think some desktop environment makes an easier transition.

You may want to point people to a comparison of the two, though, if they want to see some tangible differences between the two, not abstract terms like "Windows-like" (which really means nothing):
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kdegnome

I've never in my life heard "decreases mem useage" and "KDE" in the same sentance, unless the words TWM, Fluxbox, Blackbox, IceWM, or WindowMaker were also used in the sentance.

I tend to agree with pengu

Yves.

You know they both are bloated and take up too much mem. Fluxbox is the only real answer. And, Linux shouldn't be compared to Windoze at all. Bad memories...

So, basically, this has again turned into the old KDE vs. GNOME and also some KDE and GNOME vs. Others. Well, I'm not complaining

So, here comes my opinion :

1.As far as bieng "Windows-Like" is concerned, as rightly pointed out by somebody, the term doesn't really mean anything. KDE and GNOME both are modern desktops, just like Mac and Windows. So, obviously, they share a few common featues, which come naturaly with modern user interfaces. See what I mean? Me neither. So, we agree, then. The term "windows-like" doesn't really mean anything.

2.As far as memory issues with KDE and GNOME go, I personally have felt no problem using both of them for at least 2 to 3 years now. I have a (very) modest system - 1.5 GHz P-IV with 256 MB RAM. I run Fedora Core 4, and my system runs smooth and stable. I repeat, no problems at all.

3.As far as eye candy goes, both KDE and GNOME beat Windows any day. Baghira for KDE and Clearlooks for GNOME are so fine that Luna fades in comparison. Right now I'm using Polyester on KDE with fading and shadows. XP? What XP?

Also, for eye candy, just visit kde-look.org and gnome-look.org. The stuff there will actually blow you away! (And I'm not kidding)

That's just FUD man...

You use gentoo, so surely you know about KDE/Gnome split ebuilds? Only install what you need.
And as for bloated, that's an opinion. If kde or gnome have all the apps you need as part of the desktop, then it seems to me that is less bloat and less work than gathering and installing a bunch of freestanding apps to do the same thing, and can't seemlessy talk to each other. You lose out on the integration and uniformity, which for me is a huge plus.

Don't get me wrong, it's about choice, use what you want but there is no need to talk crap about KDE and Gnome. They are both incredibly useful and professional collections of software.

Don't get me wrong, I think they're great, but they are a bit large (i.e. 10% CPU just to sit there with everything loaded). And you know you like Fluxbox better . Plus ,I still haven't settled on any one distro longer than an install and getting it set up, so Gentoo's off my HD (a bit long install times). I do have good enough integration. Just set it up so that the Fluxbox theme looks like the QT theme, and GTK uses the QT engine.