LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Questions and thoughts about present and future editions
Forum rules
Before you post please read this

LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby mikhou on Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:04 pm

Just curious, but for any of you who have used any of the above, what is your preference, and why? I've only been into Linux for about a year, and I quickly settled on LM Main as my favorite OS. However, in an effort to get lighter and faster, I have been checking out other DEs and distros. I have been tinkering with Crunchbang Statler XFCE, and last night I downloaded Crunchbang Statler Openbox (but I haven't had a chance to even boot it up yet.) Anyway, I was just wondering what you liked and why. None of this is because I have to. My machine is powerful enough to run LM Main. Now it's just the challenge of going lighter and faster and of seeing if I like any of the other DEs or another distro better. Thanks.

mikhou
mikhou
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:55 am

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby aljoriz on Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:29 pm

Openbox and Lxde feels the similar both are excitingly fast but it seems to be aimed for an intermediate to expert linux user. It took me a while to "fix" the wallpaper for LXDE still the wallpaper on 1024x768 Monitor on my PC does not look great at times you can see another window for the Openbox. I noticed that the same 'feature' appear on Fedora core 13 LXDE.

if you want a light distro that can 'beautify' wallpaper and familiarity of use , if you came from a Gnome oriented Linux, go for XFCE.

That's just my opinion.
aljoriz
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:50 pm
Location: Cebu City, Philippines

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby Imhoteps on Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:29 am

If you need light distro use LM 8 Fluxbox http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=48 or LM 9 LXDE RC http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=60.
If you need stupid fast and light distro - check PeppermintOS http://peppermintos.com/.
Windows 8: Designed to fail
User avatar
Imhoteps
Level 2
Level 2
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:16 pm
Location: LV

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby axel668 on Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:50 am

Would choose LXDE because RC is already out for Mint9. Besides it's fast and stable, and does all I need (panel, menu, file manager).
“A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila” (Mitch Ratcliffe)
User avatar
axel668
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:56 am

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby vrkalak on Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:34 pm

I have always been an Xfce fanatic.

I love the simplicity, speed and dependability of Xfce over any other Desktop environment I have found.
Plus, that Xfce is customizable in ways that Gnome can't even imagine.

The only drawback to a distro like Mint/Xfce (Xubuntu-based) is that Ubuntu uses Xfce over a Gnome base. So, does Fedora.
Xfce was made to be a stand-alone Desktop environment ... it is best and fastest, when allowed to run as it should.

Crunchbang 'Statler' uses Xfce as a stand-alone desktop and it is way lighter than Mint and very fast. Try it ... you'll like it.

When I first tried Crunchbang, last year, I just couldn't get a grasp on Openbox.
Openbox is a "Window Manager" and NOT a "Desktop Environment" like Xfce is.
When I re-tried it earlier this year, I fell in love with Openbox. It all made sense, somehow.
I don't know that I could ever go back to another DE.

With Crunchbang, you are using Openbox (window manager) with NO desktop environment.
Extremely customizable and super fast.

So for using Xfce over a Gnome-base ... Mint/Xfce CE is the best.
For using Xfce as a 'stand-alone' desktop (as it should be) ... go with Crunchbang.

When Mint changes to having a straight Debian base, will they make the Xfce edition as a stand-alone desktop? Only time will tell.
Image
:: LinuxMint-Debian-Edition (Fluxbox) :: Manjaro/Arch (Xfce) ::
Registered Linux User: #497031 :: DeviantART Page
User avatar
vrkalak
Level 10
Level 10
 
Posts: 3289
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby Imhoteps on Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:09 pm

Xfce is not as light as LXDE is tho. More that that - the tendency is that nowadays Xfce became almost heavily as Gnome is.
Windows 8: Designed to fail
User avatar
Imhoteps
Level 2
Level 2
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:16 pm
Location: LV

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby MALsPa on Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:16 pm

vrkalak wrote:When I first tried Crunchbang, last year, I just couldn't get a grasp on Openbox.
Openbox is a "Window Manager" and NOT a "Desktop Environment" like Xfce is.
When I re-tried it earlier this year, I fell in love with Openbox. It all made sense, somehow.


I had a similar experience. My first go-round with Openbox wasn't so easy. When I installed it again, I fell in love with it.

Now I use mainly Xfce in Mepis and Openbox in Mint, but I also have LXDE installed in Mint. I like Xfce and Openbox most, and can't say which one I like better. Xfce, being a DE, comes with more stuff than Openbox, of course.

I guess LXDE is "lighter" than Xfce, but I don't think it's better (yet).
User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby kanishka on Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:50 pm

On my netbook (EeePC 1000HE) I'm currently trying Crunchbang Statler Openbox (with added XFCE) and I love it. It uses around 70Mb RAM vs the 100 (and sometimes 200!) Mbs of Ubuntu/Mint. So, I blame it on the Ubuntu base. I'm so waiting for a Debian based Mint... 8)
In the end, I'd prefer the "minty way", but the quickness of Crunchbang's Openbox and XFCE (and SIdux's!) are unmatched, thanks to the Debian base.
kanishka
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:59 am

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby vrkalak on Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:10 pm

Imhoteps wrote:Xfce is not as light as LXDE is tho. More that that - the tendency is that nowadays Xfce became almost heavily as Gnome is.


^ Agreed . . . but I say again:
The only drawback to a distro like Mint/Xfce (Xubuntu-based) is that Ubuntu uses Xfce over a Gnome base. So, does Fedora.
Xfce was made to be a stand-alone Desktop environment ... it is best and fastest, when allowed to run as it should.

Crunchbang 'Statler' uses Xfce as a stand-alone desktop and it is way lighter than Mint and very fast. Try it ... you'll like it.

Furthermore, LXDE is usually installed with Openbox ... they compliment each other well.

I use my #!Debian OS with Openbox and NO desktop environment ... super-fast.

kanishka wrote: I'm currently trying Crunchbang Statler Openbox (with added XFCE) and I love it. It uses around 70Mb RAM vs the 100 (and sometimes 200!) Mbs of Ubuntu/Mint. So, I blame it on the Ubuntu base. I'm so waiting for a Debian based Mint... 8)
In the end, I'd prefer the "minty way", but the quickness of Crunchbang's Openbox and XFCE (and SIdux's!) are unmatched, thanks to the Debian base.

I am in complete agreement with you.
Image
:: LinuxMint-Debian-Edition (Fluxbox) :: Manjaro/Arch (Xfce) ::
Registered Linux User: #497031 :: DeviantART Page
User avatar
vrkalak
Level 10
Level 10
 
Posts: 3289
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby rhodry on Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:55 pm

If you want to try a real speed demon that is rock stable and functional, have a look at Zenwalk XFCE. It is based on Slackware and is a very impressive little setup!

Personally though, I prefer my computing 'Minty' so I am (patiently just :D ) waiting for the rc/release of Mint9 XFCE. That will then be my primary os as usual.

I like where Gnome is heading with Gnome Shell even less than the revisions to KDE, so I am hanging out for the "lighter" environments like XFCE, LXDE, etc to continue with sensible evolution.

Rhodry.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
it's about learning to dance in the rain.
rhodry
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:32 am

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby axel668 on Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:00 pm

Imhoteps wrote:Xfce is not as light as LXDE is tho. More that that - the tendency is that nowadays Xfce became almost heavily as Gnome is.


That's not true ... Xubuntu is almost as heavyweight as Ubuntu (Gnome) but in other distros XFCE is very close to LXDE in resource usage.
“A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila” (Mitch Ratcliffe)
User avatar
axel668
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:56 am

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby Superewza on Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:40 pm

XFCE is the lightest of the compositing desktop environments, LXDE is a different league.
User avatar
Superewza
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, England, Europe, Earth, ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha, Milky Way, Universe, Multiverse

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby webb1976 on Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:40 pm

Wow,

I was not aware that oyu could mix and match window managers and desktop environments. I am a Linux newb and I have been doing some research on this. Mostly I would see LXDE used with Openbox. I also hear about Crunchbang (which uses Openbox) so I thought again it used LXDE.

But fro what you guys are telling me you can use a window manager by itself (like XFCE). I had heard XFCE is light-weight, but when I tried Xubuntu I could not see much difference in speed. But from what you guys are saying its because Xubuntu uses XCFE with Gnome.

Anyway, I actually downloaded Crunchbang (with LXDE) and I am curious to see what it can do (I got a PC with only 256 MB of ram). But now I guess I can try it with XFCE (without the extra stuff).

I have been a WINdows user for so long that it is amazing thinking of all the different permutations your box can have just off the environment alone. I tink it is fascinating to see just how much can be done with so few resources in today's computing age and breathe new life into legacy PC's
webb1976
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby vrkalak on Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:58 pm

webb1976 wrote: Mostly I would see LXDE used with Openbox. I also hear about Crunchbang (which uses Openbox) so I thought again it used LXDE.

Anyway, I actually downloaded Crunchbang (with LXDE) and I am curious to see what it can do (I got a PC with only 256 MB of ram). But now I guess I can try it with XFCE (without the extra stuff).

Crunchbang Statler comes with either Xfce Desktop environment OR Openbox window manager.

There is NO LXDE in Crunchbang (although, I think a couple people have added it to try)

There is a very fast and light-weight Xfce (a full desktop environment) not over a Gnome base, but as a 'stand-alone' desktop - the way Xfce was intended to be.
OR
a version of Crunchbang with Openbox window manager and NO desktop environment. Very light-weight and extremely fast.
Image
:: LinuxMint-Debian-Edition (Fluxbox) :: Manjaro/Arch (Xfce) ::
Registered Linux User: #497031 :: DeviantART Page
User avatar
vrkalak
Level 10
Level 10
 
Posts: 3289
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby Nick_Djinn on Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:08 am

I thought that the Mint version of XFCE was different from Xubuntu and reportedly faster than Xubuntu
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby vrkalak on Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:38 pm

Nick_Djinn wrote:I thought that the Mint version of XFCE was different from Xubuntu and reportedly faster than Xubuntu


LinuxMint-9 is basically Xubuntu 10.04 with the Mint specific packages and repros added.
They both have the Xfce desktop environment build over a Gnome base.

Xubuntu done right!! Makes Xubuntu Minty ... not necessarily faster.

To make Xfce faster you need a OS that has Xfce as a 'stand-alone' desktop and not build over a Gnome base like Xubuntu does. Xfce by itself is super-fast to respond. You might try another disto like Crunchbang Xfce.
Image
:: LinuxMint-Debian-Edition (Fluxbox) :: Manjaro/Arch (Xfce) ::
Registered Linux User: #497031 :: DeviantART Page
User avatar
vrkalak
Level 10
Level 10
 
Posts: 3289
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby DrHu on Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:00 pm

mikhou wrote:Just curious, but for any of you who have used any of the above, what is your preference, and why? I've only been into Linux for about a year, and I quickly settled on LM Main as my favorite OS. However, in an effort to get lighter and faster, I have been checking out other DEs and distros.

..However, in an effort to get lighter and faster..
On good hardware, it won't make much difference going lighter and faster, since the modern hardware can handle the graphic and memory requirements (and CPU, I guess) of almost any combination of desktop and applications and activities engaged in by the user of that computer system..

If it is to get rid of bloat, beyond the normal lightening of the load done by eliminating animations, desktop effects (that Microsoft and Apple seem to favor), then any of the lighter weight desktops will work well, provided you understand their limitations

I am using Lxde..
    and find it quite nice: reminds me of the original Linux desktop menu styles, all one list, list like win9x
--which lacks an application menu editor, even though the quick and easy (once you get used to it) idea of just editing a text file to provide the application shortcut or menu item you want.
Again like an original Linux style, and nothing wrong with that..
Heh, maybe we don't even really need a menu editor after all
I can go either way..
User avatar
DrHu
Level 16
Level 16
 
Posts: 6710
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby nolarut on Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:32 pm

Crunchbang (Statler Alpha release) with Openbox (post boot) runs at just above 50 mb of ram (at rest) on my machine and there's a GUI menu editor (which makes editing the menu fairly simple after installing a new app).
nolarut
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:14 am

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby Joylove on Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:05 pm

I've installed Openbox + Tint2 + Conky on Linux Mint Debian Edition. Normally upon boot total memory takes around 150mb but with Openbox it only took 60mb or less.

With Firefox and Deluge running total ram used is often below 200mb
Attachments
openbox-58mb.png
openbox-58mb.png (177.11 KiB) Viewed 18840 times
Joylove
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 pm

Re: LM XFCE or LXDE vs. Crunchbang Openbox or XFCE

Postby Nick_Djinn on Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:43 am

I have a pretty decent machine....I am looking for a setup where I have 1 full featured 'heavy' environment, and a second option that I can boot into that is FAST but not necessarily lite on resources...I have 4gb DDR2 ram, Phenom Quad 3.4 ghrz, almost a gig in the Nvidia video card, 4tb of storage space. I want something that isnt afraid to use my resources but wont freeze up and runs quick....a lot of my experiences with lite weight distros have seen systems which freeze up long before they begin to max out my hardware....why? Is there a bottleneck somewhere?
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 
Next

Return to About Mint Editions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests