Xfce is my main desktop choice for older laptops that don't have a while lot of computing power, but where I still want to have some sort of window manager.
It is sad though that the developers mention that I am going to be losing functionality because I am running Xfce on FreeBSD ... I've noticed the trend as well, more and more things are being written only for Linux and are not being ported to alternate operating systems such as FreeBSD.
I've heard that Xfce is lighter and faster, but have you really checked whether it is still so? I performed some superficial testing when I needed to install a simple system that could run a browser on an old computer and I didn't find any noticeable advantage myself. And I have read that lightness is no more a focus of development.
I installed several Linux systems consequentially on a USB flash drive, booted my laptop and measured memory consumption at system startup and when running a single instance of Firefox browser pointed to a certain website. Here's what I measured:
OS | RAM | RAM (w/FF)
xubuntu 8.04.1 183 (didn't run FF on this)
xubuntu 10.04.-RC 157 187
ubuntu 10.04-RC desktop 160 228
ubuntu 10.04-RC netbook 162 219
Tiny Core Linux 2.10 43 (failed to permanently install FF here)
I wanted to try NetBSD and other systems, but I failed to install them on a USB stick.
Tiny Core is a special Linux distribution in a way that it doesn't have much of anything installed by default, but you can "mount" applications and drivers as you need. I very much appreciate the fact that you are getting "clean slate" each time you boot, but in my case I needed to install Firefox permanently, which is doable, but not a default way of doing things. I haven't figured out how to do it, or Tiny Core would be ideal for me.
As far as differences between Ubuntu and Xubuntu go, I didn't see any significant advantage of Xfce here. Both systems could run on a 256 MB system, hardly on 128 MB. On the other hand, I didn't see any disadvantage either. To my eyes, xubuntu system looked very much like ubuntu I use.
Forget about the memory usage - most computers have at least 1 GB of memory these days. What about things that matter, like load time on login, lag when interacting with the UI, etc.?
That's the thing, I didn't see any difference (granted, that was on my quite recent laptop, but that's what I had for testing). Memory constraint was real in my case: I was going to use this on a computer that had either 256 MB or less.
I guess as a rule of thumb if you don't care about memory usage, you don't need to care about 2D graphics performance either.
I don't think that's true - I have a machine with 4 GB RAM & a 2.x Core 2 Quad. I have no memory problems, but I do have lag when using KDE or GNOME that's not present with Openbox. I haven't tried Xfce so I can't comment on it, but I'm guessing it's at least a little better than KDE/GNOME.
I don't use Xubuntu; on Xubuntu a lot of other crap runs along with Xfce so it is not fair to compare it to just a system running Xfce and no extra dependencies that are there for added functionality they thought was needed.
Yes, compared to gnome XFCE on my 700 Mhz, 192 MB ram laptop starts extremely fast and is ready for use, along with Epiphany (browser) it is a stable little machine that boots faster than my Mac OS X laptop which I have for daily use, but it off course has more limitations, no having 5 pages of documentation open (PDF's, and HTML) and a chat client, couple of gvim's and compiling massive projects. But it works well enough for development with Python when I am on the road and don't want to have to worry about the US border patrol going through my laptop and files.
I'd love to replace that old laptop with another ultra-portable (old Toshiba Portege, thinest laptop of its time), but I don't have the money, so until that time Xfce does everything I need it, and more with a lot less bloat than KDE or Gnome.
I always thought that the "lightweight" part of Xfce was about it not being inextricably wound around all the dbus and HAL stuff that gets pulled in with Gnome, and it not running an entire parallel configuration and system management system. (When I do use Ubuntu I regularly end up disembowelling ignoring or uninstalling NetworkManager and other pesky under-documented black magic GUI only tools)
xubuntu became very bloated very fast. From v8 onwards I never saw any advantage over vanilla ubuntu. I think at one point they even announced that they weren't aiming to be "light ubuntu" any more.
Lubuntu, however, is the best thing since sliced bread. I've got a 7 year old 1.2Ghz, 256Mb ultra-laptop that starts faster than my workstation.
I've tried xfce a few times in the past, but the absence of certain features ended up making it too annoying. For example, I could not navigate the main menu just by typing the initial letters of menus or programs; I either had to use the mouse, or the arrow keys. I also think (but might be mistaken) there was no way to assign different backgrounds to each desktop.
Unfortunately, looking around xfce.org, I couldn't find a place where I might learn if these things were implemented or not. Is there some place people an learn, for example, how menu navigation is handled, or how multiple desktops are configured?
http://docs.xfce.org just says, "Soonish this page will contain the Xfce users and developers documentation. "
I first tried Xfce 4.2 way back in the day: I hated it. Xfce 4.4 came out, and for a long long time I was convinced that it was the best thing since sliced bread. I've since moved on to tiling window managers, but Xfce will always be special to me.
Can someone with experience point out the major gnome vs xfce differences? Other than performance, I haven't really had too much of an issue with that.
Xfce should speak to the HN crowd, it's the MVP of desktop environments. It's fast, uses little memory, has a no clutter interface and is pretty in an austere way.
GNOME is the kitchen sink of UNIX desktops. It has everything and does everything (the KDE crowd will disagree with me here). Slightly more polished, better integrated, accessible to the casual user.
I'd recommend GNOME over Xfce to most people but if you want a desktop that doesn't get in your face (and flies!), give Xfce a spin. http://www.xubuntu.org/ has a live CD you can try out.
I also gave a try to XFCE 4.8 on my notebook with 1Gb RAM. I cannot say that it is lightweight. It took about 15 seconds to start XFCE. I also spent about 20 mins doing usual job on it and then uninstalled it. That is why I use pekwm.org . It is ultra-small, fast and light. Actually XFCE is environment and PEKWM - window manager. No additional functionality like panels, quick launchers, trays etc.
For me LXDE stays betwen XFCE and PekWM. It is not so heavy as XFCE but PekWM is lighter.
It is sad though that the developers mention that I am going to be losing functionality because I am running Xfce on FreeBSD ... I've noticed the trend as well, more and more things are being written only for Linux and are not being ported to alternate operating systems such as FreeBSD.