Looking for impressions on KDE and GNOME

[grrl]

I will be loading Linux for the first time (RH 7.3) and would like any comments you have on KDE vs GNOME.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

i dont like them personally, i just see them as bloated, obstructive, windows-wannabes.

 

[grrl]

So, what do you use for a GUI on your Linux?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

i use pwm, blackbox is also nice, but hey, different strokes for different folks. i dont like the windows interface, i dont like desktop icons, i dont like the taskbar/start button, i dont like 'minimizing' apps, and gnome/kde just seem to mimic that. for some people it works, but for me it just gets in the way and is slow.

my desktop basically consists of a browser in one workspace, an xterm in the next workspace running irc, and then various xterms scattered about for various stuff. occasionally i'll use gimp, xmms, xine, etc. but for the most part its mozilla and xterms!

 

[Sunner]

Between those two, I'd pick KDE.
To me, it has a far more "professional" feel, while Gnome feels more like "A UI and a bunch of apps".

Me, I use KDE for decently fast boxes, and XFCE for slower ones.
BBWF is a Fluxbox man(sorry woman) if im not mistaken.

 

[fow99]

If you have no other choice, go with KDE.

I would sugget that you have a shot with XFCE.

XFCE + XFT + GdkXft, hmmmmm.

 

[Travail]

I prefer KDE. The interface feels more professional... But to be fair, I only gave Gnome a 10-minute test drive in my newbie days (when it told me it didn't know how to open a .txt file, I was sold on KDE). There might be some bloat compared to other window managers, but my hardware can handle it.

Unless you're really pressed for hard drive space, install both of them to get the full set of libraries. I've only used KDE since I installed RH7.3, but I use the Gnome-based programs quite often.

 

[cleverhandle]

Definitely try both and see. And try neither too (use a straight window manager or XFCE). Personally, I love GNOME - it's more work to get set up the way you like, but once you do, there's no going back. To be fair, though, you should probably wait for GNOME until 2.0 is released in about a month or so. The 1.4 branch has just been bug fixes for a while, so there are still quite a few rough edges and awkward UI implementations there.

 

[ProviaFan]

I prefer KDE to GNOME, but you should try both and see which one you like better.

 

[jcmkk]

It would really help to know what kind of hardware you are running this on. If it is anything below 900MHz, then I would highly recommend a bare bones window manager. KDE is very polished, although it includes a lot of unwanted programs. It easily has the most eye candy of any window manager around. If you have a machine that can run it, then you should at least install it so when your windows friends come over you can make them jelous. Gnome has the windows feel of KDE with less bloat and less eye candy. If you want straight out functionality with a windows feel, then this is what you want. You should also check out some real window managers like Fluxbox or Enlightenment. They are very pleasing to the eye (still not as much as KDE) , but are a far stray from the windows interface. Fluxbox is based off the blackbox code, except it has some enhancements (tabs, and key bindings). If you run one of these two with gkrellm, and get used to them, you will be a true speed demon. I know it wasn't part of your question, but I think you should stray away from Redhat or Mandrake. They do too much hand holding, and you don't encourage you to learn linux. I think you should go with Debian or Gentoo. You will learn a lot just trying to get them installed.

 

[Nothinman]

WindowMaker kicks both their asses.

 

[manly]

Let's dial back the FUD machine a bit. You do not need a 900 MHz CPU to run either KDE or GNOME decently. I would estimate you'll get very acceptable performance with a 300 MHz CPU + 128 MB RAM, with 256 MB RAM being recommended these days. Obviously, the more powerful your PC is, the better the user experience will be. For ancient PCs, as others have pointed out, there are a handful of quality window managers you could use instead of a full desktop environment.

I've been using GNOME for a while, but will try to switch to KDE3 soon. The main reason I haven't been a KDE user is because the general look & feel is ugly in my opinion. OTOH everyone keeps raving about the liquid theme, so hopefully that will provide good aesthetics and usability. I realize every WM is themable but from an end-user standpoint, you really want something that looks good and works well, or comes bundled with alternative themes that are easily customizable.

 

[grrl]

jcmkk, I have a 1 gig Tbird, 373 megs of RAM and ATA66 hard drive.

 

[andrey]

RedHat 7.3 comes with both KDE and Gnome, and when you login, you would have a choice of either one. Try them both and see which one you like better. As far as my personal choice, I use KDE with my RedHat 7.3.

 

[Sunner]

Regarding this whole "KDE uses loads and loads of resources", it's not quite true.
Sure if you turn on all the eyecandy it will, but on the other hand, you can make it very lightweight if you're not satisfied with the performance.

 

[TheOmegaCode]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
WindowMaker kicks both their asses.

I'd probably have to agree with you on that one, only because of it's simplicity. It's what I run on my FreeBSD box at work...

 

[Flyingcool]

I use KDE, you can always change it later on

 

[Louie1961a]

I agree with the advice of try them both, but would add, try them all. I favor Gnome, because it seemed simpler to set up to me, and I really don't like the look of KDE, no matter what I do to it. That being said, neither fits my needs perfectly. My biggest complaint would be the file managers...I don't like konquerer or nautilis. Nautilis especially sucks. I really like GMC, but it doesn't seem to get along with any desktop (KDE or Gnome) if you run it in KDE, even with the --nodesktop command, it draws icons everywhere. When I run it in Gnome, it makes my desktop flaky.

There are also currently no KDE apps that I prefer. My key apps are: open office, mozilla, gaim, evolution, gimp, acroread, real player, and gnucash (although I think I am going to try codeweavers crossover with Quicken) and various games.

 

[japetto]

I will be loading Linux for the first time (RH 7.3) and would like any comments you have on KDE vs GNOME.

Hey grrl, I would definitely install and give them both a shot. You can share apps between the two and make your own decision. They are both similar desktops with +/-'s. For me - it's all about running KDE and Enlightenment window manager!

 

[Podolak]

I'd say go with KDE. I like using it better and I think it may even work better. However, if you have the space load both and try them out. You can basically pick which you like.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Louie1961a
I agree with the advice of try them both, but would add, try them all. I favor Gnome, because it seemed simpler to set up to me, and I really don't like the look of KDE, no matter what I do to it. That being said, neither fits my needs perfectly. My biggest complaint would be the file managers...I don't like konquerer or nautilis. Nautilis especially sucks. I really like GMC, but it doesn't seem to get along with any desktop (KDE or Gnome) if you run it in KDE, even with the --nodesktop command, it draws icons everywhere. When I run it in Gnome, it makes my desktop flaky.

There are also currently no KDE apps that I prefer. My key apps are: open office, mozilla, gaim, evolution, gimp, acroread, real player, and gnucash (although I think I am going to try codeweavers crossover with Quicken) and various games.

try out rox (also called rox-filer), its a cool file manager, GTK based, its fast but has pretty useful features. i use it for viewing pics by thumbnails and occasionally renaming some mp3's (sorry gurus i know nothing of sed and awk yet)

 

[Flyingcool]

Yeh install all of them and try it. See which one you like and go from there!