So I am currently running Kunbuntu I like because of the KDE. I have experience with gnome its okay I don't mind using it. Anyway I decided that I am going to give XFCE a try. During my resarch of online I ran into this debate "xubuntu vs lubuntu"

these are my specs.

intel Core 2 Duo processor P8600 (2.4GHz, 3MB L2 Cache, 1066MHz FSB)
3GB DDR2 SDRAM 800MHz System Memory
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570 graphics (256MB)
250GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive
6X Slot Load Blu-ray (BD) Combo Drive (BD Read Only)
Dell Wireless 1397 802.11g Half Mini-Card
Dell Wireless 370 Bluetooth Internal (2.1)

to my understanding lubuntu runs on nothing and is designed for computers which are extremely years old. I understand this. I also read that Xubuntu to run at "optimal" only requires 512 while lubuntu requires just 60 of ram. My question is first what are the major differences between the two? Next if I ran Lubuntu instead of xubuntu would the speed go from Godly to Good?

Consideering it is going to have far beyond the "optimial" requirement to run Lubuntu ? Will I not notice a difference and just Xunbuntu all the way? I do enjoy the very custamizable everything of KDE. Will I be at sacraficing this more and more? These are just some questions I am hoping the community can advise me on

If you want to optimize and control what is set up I would suggest Arch with XFCE. This way you control what occurs.

I wouldnt compare xubuntu 'strongly recommended to have at least 512 MB RAM' with some random 'runs on 60MB of RAM' from the internet.

Xubuntu will run on 256MB, it just runs a lot better with 512MB. Lubuntu _may_ run with 60MB (though AFAIK all *buntus require at least 64MB to install) but its going to be horrid with 60MB, or even 128MB. BTW, lubuntu is coy about minimum/recommended system requirements, but generally 128MB RAM would be the minimum, and 256MB+ recommended.

In my experience, the difference between Lxde and Xfce on system with a fair bit of CPU power (say, 1GHz P3 or faster) is minimal or nothing. Anything with a dual core or faster, most users would never see any difference.

You can also do a minimal install + Xfce rather than full xubuntu, it should be a bit lighter. Not as light as lubuntu though.

Xfce might not suit you if you like to tweak everything like you do in KDE. Lxde is less customisable in my expereince, but I could have missed stuff....

Or slackware. Or Gentoo. Or any of the source based distros for that matter.

Arch is hardly the only linux OS with that degree of control.

The main reason I am not running slackware or arch linux what I would like to be my main distros someday is beacuse I needed something that worked right now. I have been kicking it with Kunbuntu for awhile sometimes It feels slow but its still extremely fast?? if that makes sense. Slackware I always have something go wrong like I can't hear my sound or I can't use my ulti-media buttons. Arch I never got it succesfully be up. I can appreicate a minimalistic computer. I do enjoy the fact that everything can be changed. I was also reading that Slackware , Arch and even Unbuntu does not even have to use KDE. I know that Unbuntu is gnome by default. But I realized that I can change my de and its not set in stone. At least with Slackware/Arch / & Unbuntu flavors. I am curious beacuse my computer is not garabage its not the greatest but not garbage. So I was thinking if it is designed for low end systems what disadvantage am I putting myself at by running it.

It would be good to put a signature on your profile. Something to tell people what you are running, hardware wise, is a good idea (see my sig for an example). The important things are the cpu(s), ram, video card/controller and the audio card/controller.

This would make this discussion easier and save you a lot of time answering questions if you have problem.

I would, if I were you, take a little deeper look into Xfce. While it will run on lower specs than Gnome or KDE it is a fully modern desktop.

I changed to it as I don't like Gnome Shell that well although it is ceertainly usabable.

If Gnome were to go back to the Gnome panels DE I would be sticking with Xfce. With Xfce4.8 which is used, I think, in Xubuntu 11.10 and know is used in Xubuntu 12.04 it is very nice. 4.10 has been released and the 4.9.3 (about a week older than the release version) is on my Debian Sid install. Very nice and very configurable.

There are some problems with Xubuntu. One is that it is not pure Xfce. There is a lot of Gnome packages in there as "improvements". They make it so that the Xfce tips popup does not really do you any good and Xubuntu does not offer them.

If you are scared of Debian I would suggest the Linux Mint Debian Edition Xfce offering. It is based on Debian testing (Wheezy) which I use as my production OS. They use their own repos and filter the Debian testing packages to keep buggy ones (rare) from reaching you.

Debian testing, on which Ubuntu 12.04 is based for its stability (other Ubuntu releases are based on Debian unstable [Sid]) is very easy to manage as long as you install the package "apt-listbugs which warns you of bugs in packages you are installing or upgrading (Ubuntu removed this package after 8.04 for some reason).

When you first boot Wheezy or LMDE Xfce you will get a tips popup. Do not disable this. It is the very first thing of its kind that is actually well writen and useful. Lets you set up Xfce to take advantage of its flexibility and strengths.

You also need to check this;
http://thunar.xfce.org/pwiki/documen...custom_actions
for setting up Thunar.

With what the Gnome folks are doing to Nautilus you really need Thunar.

If you've never run arch, why would you want to run it as a 'main distro'?

You dont have to run arch, or slackware to get a minimal install. Most distros have some way to get a smaller, lighter install than standard.

Not really, but *buntus in general feel slow to me.

Actually, ubuntu doesnt use gnome by defualt anymore, it uses unity.

You can change DE/WM on most distros.

In general, the lighter the DE/WM, the less customisable they are, and the more you will have to use command line tools to make changes to the system.

BTW, dont think that a lighter DE/WM is going to make that much difference to fairly bloated distos like the *buntus. In my experience, ebian Xfce runs at least as well/fast as lubuntu, with slightly more RAM use. The difference between 70-100MB or RAM used at boot and 90-120MB is nothing to worry about when ou have 1GB+ (numbers are semi-made up, how much RAM xubuntu or debian Xfce will use at boot varies on version, installed programs, etc.)

*checks ubuntu package search* Oh, great, after finally putting xubuntu onto a diet for 10.04 (it was in some ways 'heavier' than standard ubuntu by 9.10!) they appear to be filling it back up with cruft.

Need? No. Its useful for some users though.

With your machines specs, most distros will run o.k.

If you want to try them, why not download the live CD's & give them a go, they can be run from a pendrive also.
(Only thing to bear in mind is that they will run faster when installed.)