Which desktop enviroment do you prefer?

[nslay]

I like Window Maker because its incredibly lightweight, easy to use, and it eliminates almost all the baggage brought by the Windows notion of a desktop (not that Windows' interface is bad).
Window Maker is dead simple...it's up there with twm (though more elegant than twm).  No start menu, no task bar, no tray...nothing.  Just right click for menu.  Minimizing iconifies the window...the icon can be placed anywhere.  Window Maker introduces very useful features not present in the classic Windows interface, like shading and hiding.  Shading allows you to pull a window up or down like a window shade.  So, if you have a maximized window with tons of other windows behind it, you can shade it to switch between the two without having to take the time to minimize/maximize. Window Maker also represent a process by an icon.  The process icon is used to hold hidden windows or offers a convenient way to kill a process that may have many windows open.  Hiding a window (a right click to iconify button) places all the windows of a process in the process icon.  The process icon represents each and every instance of the process and its windows (e.g. Say you have 5 xterms open, hiding one of them hides all 5 of them).  A click to the process icon restores all the process' windows as they were.  The process icon can also be used to bring-to-front every single window of the process which is very convenient, especially with terminals and IM windows.  Window Maker also introduces the notion of a dock which is similar to the tray in Windows.  The difference is, the dock can be used to hold application shortcuts or dock applications.  A dock application is usually an application that performs simple tasks like monitoring (e.g. weather, battery, clock, etc...).  There are many other niceties of Window Maker besides what was mentioned, but these are the features that make it so incredibly mindless, effortless and simple to use.
Mixing this interface with a Unix-style mouse makes it even better...hover to focus is really nice since it removes a needless click. 

Some other niceties: 
- Minimize and kill are separate (left and right corner) instead of next to each other...so if you intend to  minimize a window, there's no way you can accidentally kill the window.
- Window Maker offers seamless work spaces (i.e. drag windows to other work spaces, create workspaces on the fly without effort, etc...)
- GUI configurator...usually lightweight window managers rely on config files (e.g. fluxbox)...the GUI configurator offers convenient configuration of Window Maker without config files.
- Window Maker understands GNUstep, KDE, and Gnome semantics.

So its definitely worth a try if you want something new.  It is less effort to use than the classic Windows interface in my experience (again, not to say Windows' interface is bad).

[Explicit]

Even though I posted this in the "Post Your Desktop!" thread, it pretty much covers what nslay touches on in his post.

http://fictionwelive.com/peter/screenshots/05-20-08_desktop-ss.jpg

[wires]

awesome

I love tiling window managers.  I used to use dwm until I found out about awesome, and fell in love with it.

Openbox is another favorite too.

[MaDDoG]

Gnome + Compiz + Emerald = God

[Explicit]

Gnome + Compiz + Emerald = God

Only if you're concerned with making things as pretty as possible.

[Sidoh]

Only if you're concerned with making things as pretty as possible.

Haha, so true.

The only WM I've made serious use of in the past few years is Gnome.  I've tinkered with KDE, but not enough to say I prefer Gnome over it or any other WM.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with installing the new Ubuntu just yet, but when I do, it's likely that I'll play around with different WMs.  Maybe I'll find one I like more than Gnome.

[MaDDoG]

Gnome + Compiz + Emerald = God

Only if you're concerned with making things as pretty as possible.

I like pretty things

[Explicit]

Only if you're concerned with making things as pretty as possible.

Haha, so true.

The only WM I've made serious use of in the past few years is Gnome. I've tinkered with KDE, but not enough to say I prefer Gnome over it or any other WM.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with installing the new Ubuntu just yet, but when I do, it's likely that I'll play around with different WMs. Maybe I'll find one I like more than Gnome.

GNOME isn't really a WM per se, rather a desktop environment, but I know what you're getting at.

You're most likely going to stick with GNOME since it's fully-functional with just about everything you need right out of the box; no time spent configuring doo-hickeys and whatcha-ma-callits like you would in other WMs. That, and you're probably already very accustomed to the way the environment is laid out, so finding another desktop environment/window manager that you'll like more probably isn't going to happen, at least anytime soon.

I just installed Ubuntu 7.10 on a VM and so far, it's not so bad. It's virtually impossible to break something, and I like that aspect since it makes deployment across systems that much easier, especially if you're on a very, very tight budget.

[Sidoh]

Haha, I know "Window Maker" is the wrong term.  I tend to do crap like that when I'm not really paying attention, but glad you knew what I meant.  Thanks.

Anyway, that's most of the reason I don't feel the need to try others.  Some people say the ones they use are more "lightweight."  What do you get out of that when you're using a modern box?  My machine is a quad core 2.4 GHz with 2 GB of RAM.  It's already overkill for almost everything I do in Linux.  There's no way using some "lightweight" desktop environment is going to make any sort of non-trivial difference in performance.

I'm referring to Ubuntu 8.04, which was recently released as a beta (last month or two?).  I have 7.10 on my machine and both of my laptops.

[Explicit]

Anyway, that's most of the reason I don't feel the need to try others. Some people say the ones they use are more "lightweight." What do you get out of that when you're using a modern box? My machine is a quad core 2.4 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. It's already overkill for almost everything I do in Linux. There's no way using some "lightweight" desktop environment is going to make any sort of non-trivial difference in performance.

Agreed.

I'm referring to Ubuntu 8.04, which was recently released as a beta (last month or two?). I have 7.10 on my machine and both of my laptops.

Ah. I'll make a note to myself to try 8.04 out later.

[nslay]

Haha, I know "Window Maker" is the wrong term.  I tend to do crap like that when I'm not really paying attention, but glad you knew what I meant.  Thanks.

Anyway, that's most of the reason I don't feel the need to try others.  Some people say the ones they use are more "lightweight."  What do you get out of that when you're using a modern box?  My machine is a quad core 2.4 GHz with 2 GB of RAM.  It's already overkill for almost everything I do in Linux.  There's no way using some "lightweight" desktop environment is going to make any sort of non-trivial difference in performance.

I'm referring to Ubuntu 8.04, which was recently released as a beta (last month or two?).  I have 7.10 on my machine and both of my laptops.

You should try others because they offer new/different ideas and perspectives on how window management should be done.  My post on WindowMaker, for example, explains the mechanics of WindowMaker, and while WindowMaker is lightweight, it does not emphasize that as a reason to use it!  I use WindowMaker because it is simple and gets the job done fast and efficiently, not because it looks good or its lightweight.
There are better windowing paradigms than start+taskbar+tray...go and try something new, you might be surprised.

[Sidoh]

Haha, I know "Window Maker" is the wrong term.  I tend to do crap like that when I'm not really paying attention, but glad you knew what I meant.  Thanks.

Anyway, that's most of the reason I don't feel the need to try others.  Some people say the ones they use are more "lightweight."  What do you get out of that when you're using a modern box?  My machine is a quad core 2.4 GHz with 2 GB of RAM.  It's already overkill for almost everything I do in Linux.  There's no way using some "lightweight" desktop environment is going to make any sort of non-trivial difference in performance.

I'm referring to Ubuntu 8.04, which was recently released as a beta (last month or two?).  I have 7.10 on my machine and both of my laptops.

You should try others because they offer new/different ideas and perspectives on how window management should be done.  My post on WindowMaker, for example, explains the mechanics of WindowMaker, and while WindowMaker is lightweight, it does not emphasize that as a reason to use it!  I use WindowMaker because it is simple and gets the job done fast and efficiently, not because it looks good or its lightweight.
There are better windowing paradigms than start+taskbar+tray...go and try something new, you might be surprised.

Your post was a wall of text!  It scared me.

Seriously, though, I'm not really interested in playing around with stuff right now.  Maybe when I'm less preoccupied.

[Joe]

Haha, I know "Window Maker" is the wrong term.  I tend to do crap like that when I'm not really paying attention, but glad you knew what I meant.  Thanks.

Window Maker is also the wrong term! There's a difference between WM and wmaker (window manager and window maker). But I'm definitely sure you know that.

[Explicit]

Haha, I know "Window Maker" is the wrong term. I tend to do crap like that when I'm not really paying attention, but glad you knew what I meant. Thanks.

Window Maker is also the wrong term! There's a difference between WM and wmaker (window manager and window maker). But I'm definitely sure you know that.

Of course he knows that, but I'll say it for him: thanks anyway, Joe.

[Krazed]

Haha, I know "Window Maker" is the wrong term.  I tend to do crap like that when I'm not really paying attention, but glad you knew what I meant.  Thanks.

Anyway, that's most of the reason I don't feel the need to try others.  Some people say the ones they use are more "lightweight."  What do you get out of that when you're using a modern box?  My machine is a quad core 2.4 GHz with 2 GB of RAM.  It's already overkill for almost everything I do in Linux.  There's no way using some "lightweight" desktop environment is going to make any sort of non-trivial difference in performance.

I'm referring to Ubuntu 8.04, which was recently released as a beta (last month or two?).  I have 7.10 on my machine and both of my laptops.

You should try others because they offer new/different ideas and perspectives on how window management should be done.  My post on WindowMaker, for example, explains the mechanics of WindowMaker, and while WindowMaker is lightweight, it does not emphasize that as a reason to use it!  I use WindowMaker because it is simple and gets the job done fast and efficiently, not because it looks good or its lightweight.
There are better windowing paradigms than start+taskbar+tray...go and try something new, you might be surprised.

Like what? I've used Window Maker, awesome, all of those. I fail to see how those are superior to gnome, KDE, or even windows. Your start menu has options for every important application, search features, help, startup, etc. Your taskbar allows you to easily switch between open applications. Your system tray allows you to easily check the time, and work with applications that use it.

This is a world where a faster computer comes out everyday, and becomes more affordable everyday. How does it make sense to use inferior and "lightweight" enviroments?