XFCE vs KDE vs GNOME

[NightwishFan]

I use KDE. I heard Linus rant that most should use KDE, and I tried it out just to humor him. I like it, because it is easy to configure it the exact way I want it. Also change keeps me interested.

It is really good though because I use mostly KDE apps. Ktorrent, Amarok, Konqueror, etc. I figure why run KDE on top of Gnome. My only gripe with default applications is Kopete, which seems to be unable to transfer files via aim, so I use pidgin. (I hate aim but none of my local friends use jabber)

[gsmanners]

I've tried a lot of different desktops, but I always go back to XFCE. I think it's mainly because XFCE has the best panel of any DE. I don't like all the annoying bugs in Gnome's panel, and I don't care for the way KDE does their panel layout (that may change in KDE 4, though).

[handy]

it matters if the user sits there feeling annoyed and bored cos it's taking 10 seconds to open a browser or 5 seconds to open a simple file manager. This stuff gets noticed much more than a 5 second difference on tarring/untarring a big file, or audio encoding or similar. Not everybody has the latest hardware, most people don't. If you try Gnome on a PII or PIII with less than 256MB of memory you'll see that it really matters a lot. Computer hardware has certainly become mmore powerful but the software has got less and less efficient and simple stuff like opening guis is actually slower than it was years ago. I have Win2000 as a virtual machine only and it is faster in VM than XP or Ubuntu are on real hardware. That sucks.

I declared that I was speaking about modern hardware; modern by my definition meaning built within the last 3 or 4 years.

My fastest machine is out of the 3 -> 4 year bracket, & I have no problems with the speed of anything I do. My graphix card is bit younger being a 7950GT, but Ubuntu, Envy or any other method I have tried doesn't know how to handle the relatively rare XFX beast, so it currently runs on nv not nvidia proprietary!

[julian67]

yeah let's all invent our own definitions of words and then expect everyone else to telepathically know what it is.

[NightwishFan]

Well I blame you for being born without our species integrated psychic link.

[julian67]

Well I blame you for being born without our species integrated psychic link.

I have one but it doesn't work on non-modern hardware

[NightwishFan]

Gotta upgrade with the times I guess, I am due for one myself.

[handy]

yeah let's all invent our own definitions of words and then expect everyone else to telepathically know what it is.

You didn't get enough sleep?

What do you call modern?

Is there a wiki article on the subject?

I do understand that some people have a pedantic technical mind, they may work/study in such an environment that makes them hypercritical of definitions & the misuse of language.

That's life.

[julian67]

You didn't get enough sleep?

What do you call modern?

Is there a wiki article on the subject?

I do understand that some people have a pedantic technical mind, they may work/study in such an environment that makes them hypercritical of definitions & the misuse of language.

That's life.

ok so somewhere there's a commonly accepted definition that says modern means 3 to 4 years old? think not. To some people a modern computer is means only this year's, to others it means anything with *86 PC architecture. To define a term like "modern" by the hardware you happen to own and expect others to divine this meaning is a little optimistic.

[p_quarles]

Given that a thread about a dead-horse topic is starting to turn into a flamewar over what counts as "modern" hardware, I'm closing this.