hitest Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 I'm using KDE 3.2 right now on my Mandrake 10.0 work station. I've also got Enlightenment and IceWM installed too. I like IceWM and Enlightenment for speed; they're a lot faster than KDE. My unit is snappier with minimalistic WMs. When I was running Red Hat 9 on this unit I also used Gnome and Black Box. Gnome and Black Box caused weird video monitor effects though.Strangely enough my favorite is still KDE.What do you like?hitest Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tictoc5150 Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 My favorite is KDE, but have been messin' around with enlightenment also, kinda neat.I don't really like Gnome too much, a little too minimalist...as you can see if you look at my "post your desktop?" post, I like to make things look cool...useful comes in a close second...there just doesn't seem to be a WM that you can tweak the appearance of as much as KDE....or at least I haven't figure out how yet.gonna be installing KDE3.3 when I upgrade to 10.1, interested to know what kind of changes were made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kyle Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 I use Openbox, for the most part. I've gotten in the habit of using xftaskbar4 while using Openbox, though, because I like a quicker way to flip through windows than alt+tab. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted November 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 I use Openbox, for the most part. I've gotten in the habit of using xftaskbar4 while using Openbox, though, because I like a quicker way to flip through windows than alt+tab.Hi Kyle,I haven't heard of Openbox. I've run Black box, Enlightenment, ICEWM, Gnome.Is Openbox like Flux box? I'm glad you're here, man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kyle Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 Openbox is a little different than the other *boxes. For some reason, I don't like the way that Fluxbox, Blackbox, Waimea, etc. handle windows. It just feel weird to me. Openbox handles them how I want, though, and does it very nicely. It's also really easy to theme for (like all the *boxes) and is really configurable. Plus, like all the *boxes, it's very resource-light. You can get it at http://www.openbox.orgHere's a screenshot of it (running xftaskbar4, too) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted November 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Openbox is a little different than the other *boxes. For some reason, I don't like the way that Fluxbox, Blackbox, Waimea, etc. handle windows. It just feel weird to me. Openbox handles them how I want, though, and does it very nicely. It's also really easy to theme for (like all the *boxes) and is really configurable. Plus, like all the *boxes, it's very resource-light. You can get it at http://www.openbox.orgHere's a screenshot of it (running xftaskbar4, too)Thanks for the link, man.I like the look of your desktop, very minimalistic, a bit like Enlightenment. I found Black Box a bit restrictive too. I've got KDE, IceWM, and Gnome istalled on my unit, but, usually just use KDE. KDE is the only WM that doesn't produce strange video artifacts on my monitor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kyle Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 KDE is the only WM that doesn't produce strange video artifacts on my monitor.Hmm... that's odd. Could you post a screenshot of that (strange things on the monitor)? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted November 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 KDE is the only WM that doesn't produce strange video artifacts on my monitor.Hmm... that's odd. Could you post a screenshot of that (strange things on the monitor)? It's mostly Gnome that does that for me. I'll try to create that effect and post back here. It did anyway in Red Hat 9, so far I haven't seen this in Mandrake 10.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted November 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 KDE is the only WM that doesn't produce strange video artifacts on my monitor.Hmm... that's odd. Could you post a screenshot of that (strange things on the monitor)? It's mostly Gnome that does that for me. I'll try to create that effect and post back here. It did anyway in Red Hat 9, so far I haven't seen this in Mandrake 10.1 Okay, now this is just weird. I logged onto my system and loaded Gnome 2.6 for the first time on this box and it ran just fine. It looks a bit clunky as I didn't re-size the icons, but, everything worked just fine.I notice though that this version of Gnome looks different from what was on my Red Hat 9 box. Gnome on Red Hat 9 was hacked a bit with Blue Curve. This version of Gnome looks like the traditional Gnome. Maybe it was Red Hat's version of Gnome that was playing havoc with my video card? Strange. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iccaros Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 it depends on what I am doing.. mame box is running no gui every thing is SDLmythtv is running evilWMprogram creation box is running fluxboxwork space laptop kde 3.3.3SunRays are running Gnome (limitation of sunray server 3.0 beta)X thinclients running Blackbox.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted November 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 it depends on what I am doing.. mame box is running no gui every thing is SDLmythtv is running evilWMprogram creation box is running fluxboxwork space laptop kde 3.3.3SunRays are running Gnome (limitation of sunray server 3.0 beta)X thinclients running Blackbox.. Very cool, man.What is Sunray? Unix? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iccaros Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 http://wwws.sun.com/sunray/sunray1/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted November 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 http://wwws.sun.com/sunray/sunray1/ Thanks for the link, very cool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uberpenguin Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Hmm... I've been through a bunch.WAY back, I used GNOME (pre-1.0) for awhile and remember being very frustrated when the first GTK+ apps were ported to GTK2 because my themes didn't match any more GNOME and I parted ways and I didn't look back for awhile, especially after the Sawmill WM was replaced by Havoc Pennington's Metacity (what GNOME uses today), which is quite limited and feature-lacking compared to Sawmill. This more or less was at the outset of the big simplification movement for GNOME.After I got angry that GMC was replaced by Nautilus in GNOME (back then it was even more a resource pig than it is today), I had a stint in which I used most of the super-lightweight WMs: Blackbox, Openbox, Fluxbox, GNUSTEP.Then I wanted something a bit more complete than the super-minimalistic WMs, but not a full DE like GNOME... I played with XFce3 once, hated it, and then moved on to the new Enlightenment DR16 (I had used DR14 and DR15 briefly, partially because GNOME onced used them as its WM). Loved it, stuck with it for a LONG time.Fast forward a year or two and I am having some major differences with Enlightenment developers who, already infamous for their snail-pace release cycle, wouldn't fix DR16 to support / play nicely with new features and changes in the latest XFree86 release. One developer in particular is a total egomaniac as confirmed by several people I know who have had run-ins with him (not Raster, the lead dev who does MOST of the important work on Enlightenment; he's great). Anyway, that gave me an excuse to leave DR16 to find something else (which I probably would have done anyway). Incidentally, later on DR16 was fixed to play nicely with late releases of XFree, but by then I had settled with something else.So what do I use now? Remember that I had dumped XFce3 mostly because it was ugly and didn't really do much. Well XFce4 had just been released and the word was it was fantastically different from XFce3. Long story short: I grabbed the CVS, compiled it, and have been using XFce4 since. XFce4, for me, strikes a nice balance between superminimalistic and big hulking DE (plus it uses GTK2, so it matches my applications!). I just recently updated to a late CVS version (the snapshot is almost identical to XFce4.2 RC1) and am still loving it.The keen observer will note a glaring omission here: KDE. I have tried KDE from very early versions but have never liked it and still don't like it. Not really sure why, but the feel of it just grates on me... For awhile I had both GNOME 1.x and KDE something installed on my desktop, but none of my computers currently have KDE on them.I probably should also note that GNOME 2.6 and 2.8 have begun to catch my eye again now that Nautilus has become less piggish (but they removed the cool music clip features it had!)... Hell, with Brightside installed (little program that gives Metacity some necessary functionality such as edge flipping) GNOME is even usable by my standards. Still, it will take a bit more than usability to make me switch from XFce4...Here's a screenshot of my very latest XFce4 desktop:http://uberpenguin.they-are.us/temp/drei.pngHere's some screenshots of my desktop only going back to the late E DR16 days:http://uberpenguin.they-are.us/desktop.phpI wish I had some screenshots of my old desktops, but alas; I do not.. Use your imagination and the knowledge that GNOME 1.0 (and my earliest desktop) looked not totally unlike this:http://www.orbit2orbit.com/gmd/tps/screens....2-gnome-bw.jpg (using Sawfish/Sawmill)and thishttp://www.interex.org/hpworldnews/hpw904/gnome.gif (using Enlightenment)Actually that first GNOME 1.x screenshot looks a LOT like what I remember using...-uberpenguin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 I probably should also note that GNOME 2.6 and 2.8 have begun to catch my eye again now that Nautilus has become less piggishHah!(but they removed the cool music clip features it had!)...No idea what that was, but I wish they hadn't stopped there. The Audio catalog view has been blowing up Nautilus since I upgraded to 2.8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uberpenguin Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Hah!I didn't say how MUCH less piggish it is now, but it has definitely gotten better. ESPECIALLY in the speed department.No idea what that was, but I wish they hadn't stopped there. The Audio catalog view has been blowing up Nautilus since I upgraded to 2.8.``Audio catalogue?'' Hmm... I haven't used Nautilus for 2.8 too heavilly, I'll have to look at that.-uberpenguin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted November 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 I probably should also note that GNOME 2.6 and 2.8 have begun to catch my eye again now that Nautilus has become less piggish (but they removed the cool music clip features it had!)... Hell, with Brightside installed (little program that gives Metacity some necessary functionality such as edge flipping) GNOME is even usable by my standards. Still, it will take a bit more than usability to make me switch from XFce4...Hey uberpenguin! I've also liked the look of Gnome 2.6, very stable at least compared to earlier versions. I kind of like KDE 3.2 just because it's less of a resource hog than Gnome 2.6. Good to see you on the boards again, man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dogbert2 Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I like using twm and gnome.Strangely I preffer twm over flux/black box. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheLetterK Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 I like both GNOME and KDE; GNOME because 2.8 is very nice, and KDE because of all the eye-candy.In terms of just window managers, *box and WindowMaker are my two favorites. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted December 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I like both GNOME and KDE; GNOME because 2.8 is very nice, and KDE because of all the eye-candy.In terms of just window managers, *box and WindowMaker are my two favorites. Agreed. I love the eye candy in KDE. For a super fast WM I like Black Box..........but it isn't pretty. I guess KDE is it for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheLetterK Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I like both GNOME and KDE; GNOME because 2.8 is very nice, and KDE because of all the eye-candy.In terms of just window managers, *box and WindowMaker are my two favorites.Agreed. I love the eye candy in KDE. For a super fast WM I like Black Box..........but it isn't pretty. I guess KDE is it for me. Ion is sort of nice to. Simple, but very effective. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted December 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I like both GNOME and KDE; GNOME because 2.8 is very nice, and KDE because of all the eye-candy.In terms of just window managers, *box and WindowMaker are my two favorites.Agreed. I love the eye candy in KDE. For a super fast WM I like Black Box..........but it isn't pretty. I guess KDE is it for me. Ion is sort of nice to. Simple, but very effective. Hi TheLetterK,Cool. What is lon? I haven't heard of that WM. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheLetterK Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I like both GNOME and KDE; GNOME because 2.8 is very nice, and KDE because of all the eye-candy.In terms of just window managers, *box and WindowMaker are my two favorites.Agreed. I love the eye candy in KDE. For a super fast WM I like Black Box..........but it isn't pretty. I guess KDE is it for me. Ion is sort of nice to. Simple, but very effective. Hi TheLetterK,Cool. What is lon? I haven't heard of that WM. It's a WM that uses tiling instead of overlapping windows.Linky Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted December 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I like both GNOME and KDE; GNOME because 2.8 is very nice, and KDE because of all the eye-candy.In terms of just window managers, *box and WindowMaker are my two favorites.Agreed. I love the eye candy in KDE. For a super fast WM I like Black Box..........but it isn't pretty. I guess KDE is it for me. Ion is sort of nice to. Simple, but very effective. Hi TheLetterK,Cool. What is lon? I haven't heard of that WM. It's a WM that uses tiling instead of overlapping windows.Linky Cool. Very minimalistic like Black Box or Enlightenment. It looks like it would be very fast and light on system resources. Thanks for the linky Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheLetterK Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted December 18, 2004 I like both GNOME and KDE; GNOME because 2.8 is very nice, and KDE because of all the eye-candy.In terms of just window managers, *box and WindowMaker are my two favorites.Agreed. I love the eye candy in KDE. For a super fast WM I like Black Box..........but it isn't pretty. I guess KDE is it for me. Ion is sort of nice to. Simple, but very effective. Hi TheLetterK,Cool. What is lon? I haven't heard of that WM. It's a WM that uses tiling instead of overlapping windows.Linky Cool. Very minimalistic like Black Box or Enlightenment. It looks like it would be very fast and light on system resources. Thanks for the linky About 3 megs of system memory, very lightweight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.