I installed gnome from the gnome slackbuild project last night on my newly slacked laptop and I have to say that I REALLY like it.

I haven't yet tried gnome on slackware.
Hopefully will try later.

i would use KDE

Gnome is awful. My wife used to run it (I've finally got her using KDE) and guess who's job it was to do all the configuration... it's a nightmare. Gnome goes out of it's way to make configuration hard in the name of "simplifying" your desktop experience... why would you do that? I can remember spending two DAYS trying to figure out how to change the default video player.. and if they're going to make it almost impossible to change the default, why would they default to a useless app like Totem? Then there's Nautilus... which is impossible to completely replace because anything on the desktop is going to open with it, and the user does not get a say in this. I could go on. I want options. I want configurability. Gnome is actually going backwards in this regard.

I can see your point for configuration, but on my laptop Gnome "just fits". It might be that I've just gotten used to it, but I really like Gnome on this machine. On the other three 2 run KDE, and the fourth (oldest, slowest) runs fluxbox and I don't want Gnome on any of them.

I guess for the original question in the thread, my answer is "It depends."

Gnome start menu looks simpler than kde 4.x menu.

Yeah, Gnome feels like a more "unified experience" to get Steve Jobsy about it. Each program feels very single purposed I guess is what I mean by that. KDE feels (to me) like it has a lot of overlapping functionality, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just that it doesn't feel like a holistic approach. That said, up to now I've always installed KDE apps on Gnome distros. Lately though I've been trying to keep each to it's own to figure out how it was maybe meant to be used, to give fair evaluations.

I choose KDE.

1. I HATE the look of gnome, and I've never been able to get it to look tolerable to me. I've seen other people that succeeded at it, but not me.
2. I prefer Kmess for messeging, Dolphin for file management, which are integrated with KDE.
3. I like having my quick launch toolbars, everything running with transparency effects, etc. so lighter weight WM's don't really suit me that well.

But either will get the job done. I just think Gnome is possibly the worst looking default desktop ever, even going so far as saying the old Windows 3.1 desktop was far more attractive.

I personally like Gnome. And don't like KDE (I never use it). Xfce is also not bad. But the console is still the best DE!

1 members found this post helpful.

Tallying this post:
To date of the ten people who've posted, five prefer KDE to Gnome for reasons of appearance and more configuration options. One person was noncommittal and two preferred lighter Desktops.
I'd like to know the country origins for all respondents if possible. I am from California, USA. This because a senior Redhat executive, Alan Cox, stated that KDE was more popular in Europe. As far as I know, over the last few years, this the first poll in which KDE was a clear winner.

I was pleasantly surprised by this Gnome vs. KDE debate. No one became ugly or tried to assert opinion as fact. According to this source, Alan Cox, a Red Hat executive said that, “KDE gives more configurability. Gnome gives up configuarability in exchange for ease of use.” I'd call this a half truth. A few years ago, I started with Gnome because that was what was on Ubuntu. However, I was new to Linux, very curious, and I yearned for the appearance of KDE. I actually did my objective best to like KDE, but after trying KDE on Opensuse 10.3, PC Linux7 and Kubuntu and most recently, Arch 2.6.33, I will gladly remain loyal to Gnome.

Why I like Gnome over KDE
Beginner friendly yet lacks nothing. Facts, my experiences and opinion.
The start menu is simple and more organized than either KDE or windows.
Since the start menu is organized into applications, places and system, one can find anything. XP is disorganized. With KDE in PCLinux, every click in the applications menu leads to another menu, which leads to another menu...argh! The menus literally span the screen! Once one finds a program, write down the file-path or launch it from the terminal. Otherwise, good luck finding them again. Note: like GNome, the browser, feedreaders and DVD players are easy to find in KDE.

Default Opensuse 10.3 KDE is even more horrid. Click a menu and no additional menu appears. Instead the current menu changes and becomes the next window. Then click the most likely icon and the menu will change again. If you cannot find the program in three clicks of the mouse, start over. Again, write it down or just launch the program from the terminal.

Presumably, when it's said that KDE offers more configurability, that must mean from the terminal.

KDE Pleasma, Arch Linux: While I've had a few annoying issues with Gnome on the current incarnation of Arch, at least it is user friendly. One can control and manipulate the task bar without resorting to Googling for help or going to the KDE Forums, where they will preach mastering a cashew shaped, barely visible thing that does not work.

Last, Although I like to tinker, in my opinion, a desktop should not need configuring because it's merely a desktop!
Totem did suck, but once it's set up, which can be a pain, it's as good as anything else.
Appearance: Out the box, KDE does look better, in my opinion, but my Gnome looks as professional as “Mac 10”, Plasma or “Windows 7,” and all it took was a few mouse clicks.

KDE uses konqueror, which also serves as the default browser. A browser that serves as a file manager causes me to be concerned about Internet security. While my concerns may be unfounded, I just do not like it. Besides, no one makes cool add-ons for Konqueror, at least not a few years ago, when I used it. Finally, one cannot take the skills that one has with firefox and apply them to Konqueror. This is a show stopper for me. I currently bounce between firefox and Opera as my browsers. If Opera was significantly different than Firefox, I would not use it, for my philosophy is one of if software reinvents the wheel and causes me to need to learn new skills without a significant and measurable gain, then said software is superfluous.

Alan Cox, indicated that KDE is more popular in Europe than in the US and Gnome is more popular in the USA. While I cannot speak for Europe, every USA based poll of which I aware consistently shows that Gnome is more popular than KDE.
I guess my questions for Alan Cox or anyone who could and would care to answer is this: How can a system that is so unfriendly be more configurable? Perhaps the configuration advantage that KDE may have over Gnome is to be found via the terminal.
Conclusion: after trying my best to be patient and to find objective reasons to use KDE, I simply cannot find any. If one wants a simple desktop that just works, if one wants to go from windows to Linux, I'd say the smart money is on Gnome. All said heretofore, it's not surprising that Gnome consistently beats KDE in popularity polls; it's not surprising that Gnome is the default desktop for the Ubuntu system. For those who do not go to distrowatch.com, Ubuntu, by a landslide, has been the most popular distro for years.

I also found that I usually don't care for highly customizable apps. It just makes the app more complex than it needs to be and it's a pain to have to configure everything again and again.

Anyway, I've been playing around with and using Compiz recently. The effects are pretty neat, but none are really practical. The cube and minimize "magic lamp" animation are nice and practical, but I found that things like Wobbly Windows, even though neat to play with, get in the way of me using my desktop.

Also the virtual desktops are a bit messed up in Compiz. Pagers don't always work and the desktop middle-click menu doesn't work right when it comes to desktops.

One thing I liked is that I can use gtk-window-decorator to use Metacity themes. I noticed that I like simple themes like ClearlooksClassic for GTK because it just doesn't get in the way and the buttons really look rubbery and satisfying to push, unlike glossy "crystal" buttons.

Anyway, that made me wonder, it is possible to use Metacity themes on Openbox or make Metacity not raise on click?

Scary statement! I infer from your statements that it's possible for KDE to require one to reconfigure apps after a KDE upgrade or a kernel upgrade. Is this true? If so, how long and complex of a procedure is it?