GNOME or KDE
 

What Desktop Environment do you use and like the most?
GNOME or KDE or something else? :cool:

I like KDE but I also use a lot of gnome apps.

Something else :)
Depends if your after eye candy or not..

heh... yeah, i'm gonna go with something else as well. i'm generally not all that fond of a window manager that slows down your system.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...t=GNOME+or+KDE

how about just searching for EXACTLY the same question asked last week.

repeat post, but right now i am using Gnome 1.4 with a bunch of my favorite KDE apps like konqueror and kmail.

I personally like KDE best, becuase it offers better because it seems brighter and less gloomy than GNOME. But GNOME is faster and uses a little less resources than KDE.

But keep in mind both these desktops use up your system resources quite a bit, but since I am running a 14Ghz 1GB ram system, I dont see that much difference in speed.

I personally like KDE best, becuase it offers better because it seems brighter and less gloomy than GNOME. But GNOME is faster and uses a little less resources than KDE.

But keep in mind both these desktops use up your system resources quite a bit, but since I am running a 1.4Ghz 1GB ram system, I dont see that much difference in speed between the slim window managers and KDE or GNOME.

you suck, shadowhacker! :-)

*grumble* wish i had a 1.4ghz box. :-P

First of all i think you mean 1.4Ghz, which would probably be an Athlon t-bird. Alot of ram you got there :-)

I'm thinking whether or not i should upgrade from 256Megs in my linux box (the one in the sig). I have $178 from my first paycheck and i might be getting alittle bit more. Should i get a stick of Crucial PC2100 512Mb for $160? will 768Megs be a huge difference from 256megs? i know that in windows people say that anything above 512MB is not really taken advantage of unless you are running graphics intensive applications like maya.

But does KDE or GNOME speed up when extra ram is added? thanks

P.S. My motherboard supports 1.5Gb max (512MBx3)
:cool:

I use neither of them. cause they both suck.(really)

Therion..

Windows 95, 98 and ME do not make use of any RAM above 512, but NT, 2K, and XP can.

As far as whether you will see a big performance increase with 768 instead of 512... probably not, unless you are really pushing your system.

The main reason for this is that KDE and GNOME are not very well threaded, nor do they load what they can into RAM if it is available. As a result, even if you put 1.5GB in there, KDE and GNOME will not make good use of it, and when under heavy load, they will be slow to respond. Hopefully, the developers of these fine desktops will correct this problem.

Now my system... yes, I like speed. I'm an impatient girl, and hate waiting for anything on computers. When I say I want something done, I wanted it yesterday. With this setup I have now, I find that my only real slow-up is my hard drive access. And flash disks are way to expensive right now. But rest assured, when I win the lottery, become independantly wealthy, or the drive price drops, I will get a few.

(mmmmm, 0.24 second disk access times)

yeah i know that. ok thanks i will get more ram then just for fun.

right now i just reformatted my main machine... using slack 8 like always.
for the time being i am using Gnome 1.4. It works is all I care about. I like the look better than KDE. KDE is too cluttered and hogs way too much even though my machine could handle it though. usually i use a smaller manager like window maker or xfce.. and or have used blackbox.. in which my other machines are using xfce.

this brings up something.. i was going to use by default window maker... from the initial install, i selected it as the default but it won't load... like its broken.. anyone else get it to be default after a clean install of slack 8... i'll just have to go download and reinstall if i want it.. just been too lazy to do it.. or no need to right now..

-trickykid

Well now heres a few questions...

I can say I like the look of KDE, but not the speed. So could one make a "theme" on Windows Maker that makes it look like KDE, and if so, would it slow down like KDE or be fast?

And second, why is it some windows managers run faster than others, when there is not much difference in their functionality? Are some more multi-threaded, or just use alot less code?

just curious... How much ram will mandrake 8.1 actually make use of?? I used to get a laugh out of the win 98/ME users bragging about having 1gig or more ram. Ive just been running 256 2100ddr and have never had a problem.. Anything more seems like overkill.

I only use KDE. I'd like to try Enlightnment but I don't have the dependencies and such. I need to spend some time and install those so I can give that desktop a try.

Enlightenment kicks ass. Better than KDE or Gnome. Looks better and no clutter.

I use mainly ximian gnome(Red Hat 7.2 466 Celeron and 128 RAM) but i have tried to use the other enviroments like xfce, fluxbox and enlightment, but i have always returned to use gnome. Because i usually can't do something basic in those enviroments. Or i'm just lazy.

I've tried both Gnome and KDE under several versions of Mandrake and although Gnome has some great features, KDE is my preference. With today's hardware, speed isn't at all a factor, and that excuse is just a cop-out. I seriously doubt those of you with the systems you describe are having any performance problems with your window manager. If you are, it's time to buy some real equipment :) I even have Linux running on a P2 400MHz at work and I seldom notice any slowness with my window manager.

The reason I like KDE better is it's less cumbersome than Gnome to customize, even simple things like putting icons on your desktop. That's not to say you can't customize Gnome, but it's more of a pain than KDE. Also, KDE seems to have more apps integrated into it than Gnome (thus the ppl who use Gnome WITH KDE apps... why not just use KDE?). IMO Gnome has about half of the apps integrated into it that KDE does.

You can pretty much make your desktop look anyway you want under either, so that's a moot point (more gloomy?!? huh?). I even used one of the Eterm backgrounds as my wallpaper.

I've tried many of them. When I started linuxing (about four years ago)I had KDE, then moved to GNOME, then I had a second comp (very slow machine) and used WM and blackbox on it, now with my power rig I have two favs - AfterStep and Enlightenment, and I am anxious to wait till E 0.17 comes out.

I use fluxbox.

You're too good for KDE and Gnome and make an unsubstantiated comment like that: and you use Redhat 7.1?!?!?!

WAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:rolleyes:

Sorry, maybe im stupid but i thought that the process of memory management was handled by the linux kernel and had NOTHING to do with the application. Sure the application can have certain characteristics which may assist (threading), but thats about it?

And NT wont make good use of memory above 512. NT's efficiency starts to level out after about 384-512, whereas XP will keep on increasing linearly to 512mb and beyond.

Basically its eyecandy which slows things down. plus the application sizes and the number of processes started by each DE/WM.

SICKBOY wrote:
Yes and no. The kernel allocates an applications CPU usage time, but if an application is not multi-threaded well, then it will consume more CPU time because large chunks of code need to be worked each time the kernel gives it CPU access. This will cause an overall slow-down in system response.

A great example of how good multi-threading an app is BeOS. I dont know if you have played with it, but it is very fast, and I have had my CPU maxed out on one app, but I am still able to watch multiple movies and do searches on the hard drive with little performance drop. This is simply because the apps are designed to give the CPU smaller chucks of info to byte than large ones.

But like I said, hard disk performance leaves much to be desired.