Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Linuxhelp _ Polls _ KDE/Gnome Vs. Minimal Wm With Both Supported

Posted by: spiroth10 Jul 29 2004, 11:30 PM

which do you think is better? KDE/Gnome (either/both) or a minimal WM that has support for both and runs faster (if you have very low ram, like me) I use icewm and gnome for a desktop, but it runs like 50x faster. Id have to wait 5-10 mins to start up konqueror/nautilus, but now nautilus takes me a minute or two, and thats when it starts up gnome as a desktop, other then that, its usually as fast as windows explorer... better once it starts! konqueror's a bit slow still.

well, which is better? having a customized small, light wm manager, and using just KDE/gnome as a desktop (still get almost everything you d witht the desktop), or using one and only one?

I pick the light wm with support for both... I mean, why not have both AND speed? I just anted to know what everyone else thought... Id probably be using KDE if I didnt have 64 mb of RAM, but since I found icewm, im sold to that for life. with a bit of customization(if your good with the gimp) it can look exactly like your gnome/KDE theme

Posted by: Jim Jul 30 2004, 02:41 AM

Personaly I have a Gig of RAM so it doesn't make a big difference to me. I use a stripped down version of KDE. Works pretty well for me. I really like the way it runs. With a Gentoo system totally tweeked for KDE it helps.

I used Enlightenment for a wile, I liked it, but the menus were a little odd to me. So I switched back. I am probably going to get some screen shots up on my server some time soon here. I will put up a link when they are there.

Posted by: hughesjr Aug 29 2004, 08:30 AM

If you have the RAM and Processing power, I think Gnome (or KDE) is a better choice ... because they are user friendly and are a very good experience.

If you don't have lots of RAM or Processing power, then a new minimal WM is better than an older version of KDE/Gnome (in my opinion).

I like XFCE4 ... I installed it on a laptop with 192mb ram and a pII 366Mhz processor ( is a thread). It works very well ... I am next going to try it on a pII laptop with 128mb RAM and a 233Mhz processor.

Posted by: beltucadros Jan 11 2005, 01:59 AM

im using pekwm with kde ontop of that much faster than kde by itself. now if i could just find a nice non-bloated DE

Posted by: Corey Jan 11 2005, 07:25 AM

I have to agree with hughsjr, if you have a bit of ram (probably anything over 128mb), then I suggest using KDE (i'm not a gnome fan). If you're running a little short on ram, or if you just like the general speed, then my suggestion for a minimal WM is WindowMaker, it's tried, tested and true. I could never get into any other minimal WM, I started out on Linux with WindowMaker and always loved it.

Posted by: g33k Jun 19 2006, 09:42 AM

I use Enlightenment 17 (e17) with both KDE n GNOME base libraries..
currently it eats about 230MB off 369MB RAM..i have 3 terminal windows, amaroK and Flock running..
at startup the system eats about 86MB RAM cool.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (
© Invision Power Services (