Linux Help
guides forums blogs
Home Desktops Distributions ISO Images Logos Newbies Reviews Software Support & Resources Linuxhelp Wiki

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Advanced DNS Management
New ZoneEdit. New Managment.

FREE DNS Is Back

Sign Up Now
> KDE/Gnome Vs. Minimal Wm With Both Supported, just curious
KDE/Gnome vs. minimal wm with both supported
KDE/Gnome vs. minimal wm with both supported
KDE/Gnome [ 13 ] ** [76.47%]
Minimal WM supporting both and using KDE/Gnome as a desktop [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]
Total Votes: 17
Guests cannot vote 
spiroth10
post Jul 29 2004, 11:30 PM
Post #1


Grub-er
**

Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 21-February 04
Member No.: 2,431



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 5)
Jim
post Jul 30 2004, 02:41 AM
Post #2


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 19-November 03
From: University of Minnesota- TC
Member No.: 1,828



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.


--------------------
--Jim Lester
jim@linuxhelp.net

Distro: Gentoo
System: AMD Athlon 3000+ XP 2.166 GHz
NVIDIA nForce2 IGP Chipset
1GB 333 MHz DDR SDRAM
NVIDIA nForce2 Dual Head 64 MB Graphics

Server Distro: CentOS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hughesjr
post Aug 29 2004, 08:30 AM
Post #3


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,433
Joined: 25-July 03
From: Corpus Chrsiti, TX, USA
Member No.: 1,151



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 (here 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.


--------------------
Johnny Hughes
hughesjr@linuxhelp.net
Enterprise Alternatives: CentOS, WhiteBoxEL
Favorite Workstation Distros (in order): CentOS, Gentoo, Debian Sarge, Ubuntu, Mandrake, FedoraCore, Slackware, SUSE
Favorite Server Distros (in order): CentOS, WhiteBoxEL, Debian Sarge, Slackware, Mandrake, FedoraCore, Gentoo, SUSE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beltucadros
post Jan 11 2005, 01:59 AM
Post #4


Grub-er
**

Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 28-September 04
From: Buffalo
Member No.: 3,855



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


--------------------
"And we were differant, just like all the other kids."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Corey
post Jan 11 2005, 07:25 AM
Post #5


Its GNU/Linuxhelp.net
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,254
Joined: 21-September 02
From: St John's, Newfoundland, Canada
Member No.: 3



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.


--------------------
Corey Quilliam
(former) Linuxhelp.ca Administrator
cquilliam-AT-gmail-dot-com

Want to help out Linuxhelp.net? Check out our Linuxhelp Wiki and see if there are some articles you would like to submit!!

--
Ubuntu 8.04 64-bit - Work Laptop (HP-Compaq NC6400 Core2)
Kubuntu 8.04 64-bit - Desktop (HP m8120n QuadCore)
Ubuntu 6.04 - Server (I'm not upgrading this baby until support runs out in 2012) (Some old POS dell)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
g33k
post Jun 19 2006, 09:42 AM
Post #6


./configure
***

Group: Support Specialist
Posts: 84
Joined: 18-June 06
Member No.: 6,568



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


--------------------
-- a *certified* n00b

"The best is Yet to come !"

My Desktop : OpenSuSE 10.1 | FVWM-Crystal | MPD | Gaim | Opera | Mrxvt
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th November 2017 - 09:29 AM