Opinion XFCE vs Cinnamon

[MurphCID]

I realize this has probably been beaten to death, but I have some questions so please bear with me. I am using and have used Cinnamon in all my Mint installations, but there is something about XFCE that keeps whispering to me in this seductive voice: "Try it, I promise you will like it, just relax and give it a go...". I have never used XFCE, it seems like a cross between Gnome and Cinnamon, if I am not too far off base here. I understand that XFCE is light, fast, and modular (not sure what that means), compared to the relatively heavy footprint of Cinnamon.

I know that the Mint devs would never have kept XFCE on if it was not a good desktop environment, but I guess my big question is what is the real difference between XFCE and Cinnamon? I mean I don't really understand Thunar vs Nemo as a file manager, they look similar/the same, so what is the difference? I am NOT worried about footprint since I have 32 GB of RAM, so that is a non issue for me.

Do programs work the same under XFCE. So please have mercy on a relative noob, and grant me the boon of the wisdom of the forum.....

[MrEen]

I use Xfce because the first computer I put Mint on required it. Never had a reason to change after that, though I've tried Cinnamon in a VM where it doesn't run properly (graphics issues I don't care to troubleshoot,) so I've stayed with it.

There should be no difference at all in your programs. You might notice a bit more peppiness in the system.

You'll lose a few settings and gain a few as well. Most should have another way of accomplishing the same thing.

As always, the best thing to do is to run a Live version and try it out yourself. Do that a few times when the computer isn't being actively used for normal tasks and decide if it's worth installing.

One benefit is the Xfce forum gives you 2 great sources for help (along with this forum) so you can stop asking questions at linuxquestions.

[MurphCID]

I use Xfce because the first computer I put Mint on required it. Never had a reason to change after that, though I've tried Cinnamon in a VM where it doesn't run properly (graphics issues I don't care to troubleshoot,) so I've stayed with it.

There should be no difference at all in your programs. You might notice a bit more peppiness in the system.

You'll lose a few settings and gain a few as well. Most should have another way of accomplishing the same thing.

As always, the best thing to do is to run a Live version and try it out yourself. Do that a few times when the computer isn't being actively used for normal tasks and decide if it's worth installing.

One benefit is the Xfce forum gives you 2 great sources for help (along with this forum) so you can stop asking questions at linuxquestions.

Thanks! Linuxquestions does seem very elitist these days, not new question friendly. I might try a live version, Cinnamon has been working great for me, but there is just...something about XFCE that keeps calling to me for some reason, even though I have never used XFCE.

[mr_raider]

They are both "traditional" desktops with a taskbar and menu. XFCE is more configurable, and has a lot more history/years behind it. XFCE is however a very slowly evolving desktop, while Cinnamon being Mint's baby receives more frequent upgrades.

Personally I prefer XFCE after KDE, as my go to desktop.

[antikythera]

XFCE isn't that light these days, it's on par with MATE now. The conversion to GTK+3 added some middle aged spread and the project developers are doing their best to optimise the code again. Given their limited resources and usual pace of development it could be a few years before results filter through to end users.

The only real factor is how you get on with XFCE rather than how it performs on your hardware. I'd suggest running it in VM for a couple of weeks and using it instead of Cinnamon to do everything you normally would where possible. Then you will see if you could live with it or not.

Some of the pep advantage for XFCE can be gained back in Cinnamon by turning off the Effects.

[JerryF]

I first started with Cinnamon for our desktop and laptop. It worked fine, but I too looked into the others (MATE, Xfce).

Didn't care for MATE. Xfce looked interesting. Tried it and loved it. Responsiveness is quicker.

For me, Xfce seems easier to configure things. It's now our desktop environment.

[dm999]

I was new to Linux in December 2019 and ran Cinnamon for 6 months and whilst I didn't have any problems with Cinnamon I felt that Xfce was a bit more 'my thing'. Now I only use Xfce and love it, it's quick, configurable and reliable and I'd take a LOT of convincing to use anything else.

[Hoser Rob]

My favorite DEs are KDE and Xfce in that order. IMHO Cinnamon is a triumph of style over substance, much like Gnome 3.

[mr_raider]

My favorite DEs are KDE and Xfce in that order. IMHO Cinnamon is a triumph of style over substance, much like Gnome 3.

Bazinga!

[DisturbedDragon]

If you don't mind giving up a little disk space you can install XFCE and really any DE then switch it at the login screen. Cinnamon on odd days and XFCE on even days . KDE for holidays maybe

[senjoz]

I think that there is no big difference in functionality capabilities between Cinnamon and Xfce desktops environments. It is more on personal preference in look and feel to decide which environment to use. I have two machines with Xfce and one with Cinnamon and Xfce. In both environments I had to manually edit some .css and .js files to adapt look and feel to my preferences. Now I am happy with both. With the not very recent processor i5 7200u, 16 GiB of ram and nvme SSD disk I do not observe significant differences in responsiveness of systems.

Try Xfce! If you are more traditional oriented, you will love it.

I think that with your level 6 in the forum you are not very noob!

Regards,
Jože

[MrEen]

XFCE is however a very slowly evolving desktop

That's finally changing now: https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.16/roadmap

I'm not suggesting it's for the better.

[SMG]

Some of the pep advantage for XFCE can be gained back in Cinnamon by turning off the Effects.

So this would make a noticeable difference in how it responds?

The recommendations I've seen given by people on this forum suggest what I have should not really even be attempted to run Cinnamon. I'm running LM20 Cinnamon on a 2nd gen Celeron processor with 4GB RAM and an SSD. I always hated the Aero effect (or whatever it was called) in Windows and I presumed Cinnamon's Effects were similar, so I turned them all off when I set up LM20. While I wouldn't call this a speed demon, I can't say I notice any type of lagging or problems. Response time seems reasonable to me and I'm quite happy with it. Is the fact I have effects turned off probably the reason I consider it responsive? If so, I'll make sure to never turn them on.

[all41]

From a MATE user:
decisions, decisions
Best deal is to try them all.
There are many things to admire in each desktop environment.
Maybe more than one fits your fancy

[AZgl1800]

I use Cinnamon, and have tried all of the other desktop formats, and just do NOT like them at all.

I find myself trying to make them more 'Cinnamon like' so that my preferences can be there.

so, why bother?

I purposely bought a fast laptop with 16gB RAM, so it just does not matter how may apps are loaded up at one time.

with my hardware, there is NO difference in speed amongst the various distros.

[deck_luck]

Desktop Environments (DE) can be very subjective. After thoroughly testing gnome3, Cinnamon, MATE, KDE, and XFCE, you will discover the best choice for you.

Conversely, there are objective reasons for considering a DE. I use XFCE as my go to desktop environment primarily because it is quite efficient as compared to the bloated gnome3 based desktop environments. The Ubuntu Studio distro chose XFCE as their desktop environment for good reasons. It is a light to mid weight DE and more efficient. Wasting cpu cycles and memory on meaningless desktop environment features results in shorter laptop battery run times. Hence, the XFCE DE is my choice for my laptop installation.

My goals are an appealing DE and better laptop battery life. I know you can get light weight DEs, but they are butt ugly and remind me of Windows 3.0. And, I am not going to spend countless hours on the internet trying to figure out how to make them look half way decent. No thanks, I will stay with the a very nice distro like Linux Mint XFCE.

[antikythera]

So this would make a noticeable difference in how it responds?

While I wouldn't call this a speed demon, I can't say I notice any type of lagging or problems. Response time seems reasonable to me and I'm quite happy with it. Is the fact I have effects turned off probably the reason I consider it responsive? If so, I'll make sure to never turn them on.

It depends more on what GPU the system has. If you are using integrated graphics which share some of the 4GB RAM then yes turning off effects will certainly help performance. If you are quite happy with how your system performs switching desktop environments to eek out more performance is certainly not worth the hassle.

[kc1di]

I've used both XFCE and Cinnamon and like them both, But pretty much stick with XFCE, I just feel comfortable with it. But it pretty much boils down to personal choice unless your machine requires a less resource hungry DE. Xfce uses slightly less resources. other than that Cinnamon or XFCE will work well for you. Best advise is to try them all out and see which one fits your style of operating.
Good luck in the search. Have fun

[SMG]

It depends more on what GPU the system has. If you are using integrated graphics which share some of the 4GB RAM then yes turning off effects will certainly help performance. If you are quite happy with how your system performs switching desktop environments to eek out more performance is certainly not worth the hassle.

Thank you for the explanation. This laptop does have the Intel integrated graphics. It had LM19.2 on it when I bought it and I used the only spare usb I had for the LM20 ISO and just have not remembered to buy more usb's to try Xfce. (It's a small usb, so no room for more than one ISO.)

I believe Xfce uses a different windows management framework than Cinnamon? Wasn't sure how much of a factor that might be in the speed/performance realm, or if that was a major underlying difference between all the different desktops?

[MurphCID]

So what it seems is that XFCE can be customized more so than Cinnamon for each users personal desires? Also XFCE is updated slower than Cinnamon for the most part? I am very interested in trying it, and will see if I can get an older laptop to try it on. Thanks all, I am learning a great deal here in this thread. Oh a question, how does XFCE handle a seperate graphics card like the NVIDIA cards?