• From: Nagoya, Japan
  • Registered: 2009-01-07
  • Posts: 1,724

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

Zwopper wrote:

Yes Thunar would be nice, with omploader script and whatnot as default custom actions - really handy.

Great idea! smile

John
------------------------
( a boring Japan blog , and idle twitterings )
“There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.” - Master Foo

johnraff's Website

  • Registered: 2009-03-23
  • Posts: 354

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

^I have actually gone back to pcman :-) It's faster - and i miss nothing from tunar :-))

  • scket
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • From: West Midlands
  • Registered: 2009-01-16
  • Posts: 153

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

achristoffersen wrote:

It's faster - and i miss nothing from tunar :-))

Apart from the 'H'. lol

  • Registered: 2009-03-23
  • Posts: 354

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

scket wrote:
achristoffersen wrote:

It's faster - and i miss nothing from tunar :-))

Apart from the 'H'. lol

yadayada :-D
--
the tuna manager

  • Morley
  • #! CrunchBanger
  • Offline
  • From: Albuquerque
  • Registered: 2010-02-17
  • Posts: 127

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

This has some interesting info ... it compares Gnome, KDE, XFCE, and Lxde (via LinuxToday)

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a … &num=1

I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation!
  • From: California, USA
  • Registered: 2008-11-29
  • Posts: 8,647

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

They need to repeat the test with a non-Ubuntu based OS.

Note: ** Please read before posting **

BTW if you wish to contact me, send me an e-mail instead of a PM.
  • From: Florida, Occupied C.S.A.
  • Registered: 2009-04-25
  • Posts: 291

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

There seems to be little difference in most areas between Xfce and LXDE, which I have always suspected. And Gnome is still a lot lighter than KDE. But so much was not mentioned, like sheer size, for example. LXDE is tiny compared to the other three, followed by Xfce, Gnome, and then KDE (which is commercially supported and feature rich). The other three are GTK-based, so there are alot of similarities.

LXDE wins hands down in all categories (though they didn't test anything against Openbox or IceWM, etc), but it's changing so rapidly and has yet to even out (is "mature" the right word?). There's too little difference performance-wise between LXDE and Xfce for me to worry about... and I like having the super-configurability of Xfce and Openbox without all the Gnome bloat.

-Robin

DixieDancer's Website

  • Registered: 2010-03-06
  • Posts: 71

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

Openbox all the way.  XFCE mouse settings don't stick for me.  The menu isn't as easy to edit, I prefer the crunchbang panel to the xfce panel or lxpanel (http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … ang-panel/)  and overall openbox is just lighter, easier, and more customizable.  XFCE doesn't feel much better than Gnome to me in terms of performace.

  • From: France, Vesoul
  • Registered: 2009-02-20
  • Posts: 44

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

#! without openbox ? I can't imagine...

#! some firefox' tips & tricks

ottomar's Website

  • Registered: 2008-11-25
  • Posts: 4,363

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

ledomira wrote:

XFCE doesn't feel much better than Gnome to me in terms of performace.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the Xfce setup in statler. If not openbox will be there as an option as well. It's a win win smile

  • From: Ontario, Canada
  • Registered: 2009-06-29
  • Posts: 1,409

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

omns wrote:
ledomira wrote:

XFCE doesn't feel much better than Gnome to me in terms of performace.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the Xfce setup in statler. If not openbox will be there as an option as well. It's a win win smile

I agree, its not like openbox will be gone. I think the most trouble I'll have will be choosing which one to stick with lol

just call me...
~FSM~
  • Registered: 2010-02-16
  • Posts: 14

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

Personally, using xfce components kind of defeats the whole point of CrunchBang.  Xfce is nice for regular desktop computer, where you have power to spare.  I like Crunch because it is light, and has the features I Need.  I will admit, for people kind of new to linux, it might be confusing to not has a desktop.  I doesn't really bother me, especially since Crunch makes use of the windows key for common programs (awesome idea by the way, thumbs up).  Crunch fits my older laptop very well, and with netbooks getting popular, I think crunch will have it's own little nitch for a while.  Lets not "fix" something that works.  If you want xfce, there are a variety of distros out there that are ready to use, xubuntu being the main one.  I believe Mint has an xfce version, and of course debian.

As for performance issues between the two, I've seen xfce distros use about 50-60 meg more memory vs Openbox, sometimes more.  For example, xubuntu takes about 190meg on a clean boot.  Crunch takes about 85 meg on clean boot.  Now ubuntu is a bit bloated, Debian xfce takes about 150 meg.  I forget what Debian openbox/lxde takes, seems like it's about a 130 meg.  The more stuff you have in memory, generally the more cpu gets used to maintain it, even though you might not see a real difference idle.

  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 1,858

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

Don't worry, sirj77... I do not think CrunchBang "Statler" will suffer from the bloat of Xubuntu. smile

Last edited by snowpine (2010-03-16 14:38:48)

  • From: Ontario, Canada
  • Registered: 2009-06-29
  • Posts: 1,409

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

sirj77 wrote:

Personally, using xfce components kind of defeats the whole point of CrunchBang.  Xfce is nice for regular desktop computer, where you have power to spare.  I like Crunch because it is light, and has the features I Need.  I will admit, for people kind of new to linux, it might be confusing to not has a desktop.  I doesn't really bother me, especially since Crunch makes use of the windows key for common programs (awesome idea by the way, thumbs up).  Crunch fits my older laptop very well, and with netbooks getting popular, I think crunch will have it's own little nitch for a while.  Lets not "fix" something that works.  If you want xfce, there are a variety of distros out there that are ready to use, xubuntu being the main one.  I believe Mint has an xfce version, and of course debian.

As for performance issues between the two, I've seen xfce distros use about 50-60 meg more memory vs Openbox, sometimes more.  For example, xubuntu takes about 190meg on a clean boot.  Crunch takes about 85 meg on clean boot.  Now ubuntu is a bit bloated, Debian xfce takes about 150 meg.  I forget what Debian openbox/lxde takes, seems like it's about a 130 meg.  The more stuff you have in memory, generally the more cpu gets used to maintain it, even though you might not see a real difference idle.

Xfce isn't fairly represented by either Xubuntu or Linux Mint XFCE, or even Debian. Its the use of Ubuntu that makes Xubuntu heavy, not XFCE itself.
Statler will have xfce and openbox, i suggest we wait and see the difference between the two.

just call me...
~FSM~
  • Registered: 2010-02-16
  • Posts: 14

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

As far as I can tell, you can't get much more vanilla than Debian Stable XFCE.  I take that back, I installed LXDE of that cd, but they can't be much different, especially off the same cd.  I believe my 150meg number came from using debian base and installing packages from there.  To get anymore vanilla, you would probably be looking at Slackware or something similar.  I agree, Ubuntu is kinda heavy, is why I've been dabbling with Debian LXDE on my old spare desktop computer.  I run into little annoyances that I think relate to me using xUbuntu for so long.  Stuff I try to load into Debian stable I think want newer dependencies.  I've been slightly spoiled with Ubuntu "stable".

I am curious to see what Crunch xfce is going to be like.  For My intended purpose, I still like Openbox.  A slimmer xfce version would be nice for other computers I maintain.

  • Registered: 2008-11-25
  • Posts: 4,363

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

sirj77 wrote:

Personally, using xfce components kind of defeats the whole point of CrunchBang.  Xfce is nice for regular desktop computer, where you have power to spare.  I like Crunch because it is light, and has the features I Need.

The 8.04.01 LTS release was popular with many because it to had an Xfce and Openbox session. It was light and feature packed.  It's nice to see CrunchBang returning to that winning combination smile

sirj77 wrote:

As for performance issues between the two, I've seen xfce distros use about 50-60 meg more memory vs Openbox, sometimes more.  For example, xubuntu takes about 190meg on a clean boot.  Crunch takes about 85 meg on clean boot.  Now ubuntu is a bit bloated, Debian xfce takes about 150 meg.  I forget what Debian openbox/lxde takes, seems like it's about a 130 meg.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by Xfce in Crunchbang. On the Xfce only test build I'm running now I typically use between 70-80mb of ram at boot. This hovers around 100-120mb with typical browser and word processing use. Using xubuntu as an example of an Xfce system that compares to openbox  is a poor one. It is well recognised that xubuntu has excess bloat and is not representative of a typical Xfce system.

  • Registered: 2009-09-07
  • Posts: 84

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

+1  for OpenBox AND Xfce

  I did a netinstall of xubuntu awhile back. With the same packages as debian xfce, it was very light. So I'm expecting that it will be a nice alternative to have. It'll also be pretty cool to login to openbox, check it's footprint, and logout. Then log back into Xfce and compare - awesome.

   Peace

  • Registered: 2010-03-06
  • Posts: 71

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

I prefer Openbox.  Editing the xfce menu is just too cumbersome.  Maybe the Statler release makes it easier (don't know, I'll have to try it), but firing up obmenu is just so easy in openbox.  I also kind of like it when I install a program and my menus aren't automatically changed.  I like to stay in control of my system.

  • Registered: 2009-10-09
  • Posts: 419

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

omns wrote:

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the Xfce setup in statler. If not openbox will be there as an option as well. It's a win win smile

I wasn't really a fan of xfce when I used the xubuntu version (so switched to fluxbox instead) but this is pretty cool! I'm on the xfce flavor live cd right now and I really like the way you guys did this (if feels a lot more out of the way, if that even makes sense). But now I'm gonna have to make decisions! hmm big_smile

  • Registered: 2008-12-02
  • Posts: 11

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

I've been playing around with both versions and have to say I still prefer the openbox one. I like XFCE but it doesn't have that "geek" edge that OpenBox has. The menu system in XFCE is far less versatile as well.

Mike Johnston
Founder and Senior Editor
CMS - ERP & CRM Critic

sinbsd's Website

  • From: Ontario, Canada
  • Registered: 2009-06-29
  • Posts: 1,409

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

sinbsd wrote:

I've been playing around with both versions and have to say I still prefer the openbox one. I like XFCE but it doesn't have that "geek" edge that OpenBox has. The menu system in XFCE is far less versatile as well.

I seem to prefer the XFCE version. To me, it feels near identical to Openbox, but i love the additional configure apps, all under one 'Settings' menu. It seems more organized to me, whereas on Openbox you must go to different section for different configs. I'm also a bit more comfortable using these GUI apps then the configs. Not that I didn't get used to it for #! 9.04 and 8.10, its just, i guess  i like the way XFCE has been organized.

And i can't see any downside, as they run on about the same ram.

just call me...
~FSM~
  • Registered: 2010-03-21
  • Posts: 54

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

I s there a clever way to get the #! configured xfce from the  statler openbox install?

  • From: RIT
  • Registered: 2009-03-02
  • Posts: 14

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

brokenpike wrote:

I s there a clever way to get the #! configured xfce from the  statler openbox install?

I was wondering this also; I'd prefer to wait to perform a fresh install of CrunchBang again until some of the LiveUSB bugs are ironed out.
Is there a way to install the xfce packages and choose which environment to boot into at the GDM?

  • Registered: 2010-03-21
  • Posts: 54

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

How does one edit the xfce right click menu list?

  • From: Glasgow, Scotland
  • Registered: 2008-11-30
  • Posts: 229

Re: Openbox vs XFCE?

Zwopper  saide:
"I used to be an XFCE-fan, but OpenBox has proven to be more efficient and less "in my way" ."

+1. It's Openbox for me for its simplicity and easy customisation.

--------------------------------------------------
I wonder what happens if I click on this..?
Registered Linux User No. 382639
Identi.ca   Twitter   The Red Devil blog

red devil's Website