XFCE is a beauty

d0b33

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,508
Reaction score
495
Location
Western Cape
I decided to give XFCE a go, at first I ran into a few problems but once I got around it I made it my default desktop manager.

Things I love about it:
Loads quicker than gnome
Highly customizable
Compatible with gnome applets
Fast and responsive

Good alternative for those who want the responsiveness of fluxbox/blackbox but without the restrictions.
 
Indeed, definitely worth considering for lower-specced machines or if you just like this WM. I think it does compiz too. Won't make me switch from fluxbox though :D.
 
Aqua_lung said:
I decided to give XFCE a go, at first I ran into a few problems but once I got around it I made it my default desktop manager.

Things I love about it:
Loads quicker than gnome
Highly customizable
Compatible with gnome applets
Fast and responsive

Good alternative for those who want the responsiveness of fluxbox/blackbox but without the restrictions.
Click to expand...

yip, makes the 701 remotely usable..
 
Recently downloaded Xubuntu for test drive and I'm quite impressed with it
 
LOL, I have a google alert setup for XFCE and in my alert for today I got a link to this thread :)
 
i found xfce to be fairly similar to gnome ito performance. i am now trying out e17
 
i disagree i i find xfce has better performance than kde or gnome
 
+1 for the performance of XFCE, however for modern systems the load placed on the system from the window manager is quite low, so people rarely experiment with other more minimalist WMs. Currently I run Gnome/XFCE depending on which machine I run it on but I find that I can work faster whilst using XFCE than gnome. If this is only perceived speed or true speed I can't really tell.
 
I used xfce extensively for about 3 months. It then crashed on me and i switched to gnome because of the fact that xfce basically is meant to be gnome lite. however when i started using gnome i found no significant difference. yes i would have said xfce was faster. but not in any substantial way i felt. e17 for instance seems to be far more more responsive.
 
milomak said:
I used xfce extensively for about 3 months. It then crashed on me and i switched to gnome because of the fact that xfce basically is meant to be gnome lite. however when i started using gnome i found no significant difference. yes i would have said xfce was faster. but not in any substantial way i felt. e17 for instance seems to be far more more responsive.
Click to expand...

I only find e16 in the local repos, will give it a try.
 
i didn't get e17 (debian) off the local repos. however for F10, e17 is available from the local repos.
 
Ok, enlightenment is a lot like blackbox, afterstep definitely faster than XFCE(slightly for me) but I find them limiting.

I'm back to gnome now since I messed with my XFCE config.
 
I must say that I cannot see the difference in performance between XFCE vs GNOME cause my home & work PCs have fast processors (3Ghz P4 / 6000+ AMD).

But on my wifes old 700Mhz there was a diff .... will give e17 a go on a 1.6Ghz Celeron I'm building for my son this next month :)
 
As a relative rookie in Desktop Linux, I've found there to be very little to seperate XFCE form Gnome performance wise, if the PC has 512mb ram or more.

Gnome is just more refined in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X