Then you've confirmed that Gnome is correct choice for me. I do not mind configuring an app, but I loathe the idea of configuring the desktop because, in my opinion, I should not have to configure one. I appreciate form over function. However, as I said, on my machine, the only performance difference between Gnome and XFCE is XFCE's superior boot speed, so I can afford to place a greater priority on appearance. On my machine KDE lags a bit, which would not bother me if I did not need every kb of ram possible and if KDE were configurable and user friendly. I've never, ever had a pleasant KDE experience, and the truth is that I've always thought KDE looked better, so I wanted to use it. Now, I really like Gnome.

Yeah, that's cool. I've never lived anywhere cooler than -18 celsius. I miss it sometimes. Here in southern California, it someimes feels cooler than colder climes due to the fact that the weather can go from a sunny 21 C to a windy rainy 11 C overnight.

You've lost me. You prefer Gnome over XFCE because it's more configurable, but you "loathe the idea of configuring the desktop?"

Do you mean that Gnome's default settings are preferable to you?
To each their own. Personally, I'd rather have a car that looks like a Datsun but goes like a Ferrari. Many people would have it the other way, which doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Interesting. Which versions have you tried? Personally, I always found the 1.x series wanting. The 2.x and 3.x series were awesome, and blew Gnome out of the water in terms of ease of installation, consistency of the interface, user-friendliness and number of cool features available out of the box (e.g. being able to rip songs off CDs directly from the file manager).

The latest series (4.x) ain't so great, and I have found it to be buggy and very rough around the edges compared to prior versions. I'm sure the foundations are there for greatness, but it seems to be very much "unpolished" at this point, which is a great shame. My distro of choice doesn't package Gnome, and I can't be bothered doing it myself. Luckily XFCE rocks.
We have similar variations here in Melbourne, although it rarely goes below 0 celsius, even on the coldest winter days. I can't even imagine -18...

I am sure that there are those who would take exception to the context in which you used the word "silly." Responding to the meat of your statements, I approach desktops with an open mind, so when I try a desktop, if it has Gnome dependencies, then I will think that I might as well go back to Gnome and run it there unless there is just something so compelling about the other desktop. The only reason that I used Fluxbox was because I was having issues with Gnome on Ubuntu 9.04. I liked fluxbox, but not more than Gnome. It taught me some things. However, I was not overly thrilled with the documentation.

I installed XFCE4 because I was having common problems with Gnome on this computer, Arch. The latest version of Arch rvery rarely gives me problems, and in the past, I never, ever experienced one Gnome problems. Kde on the other hand.
Last, but not least, a corporate appearance is important to me. fedora 11, Gnome 2.30, KDe, Mac, and Vista all have a quality appearance, which is important to me personally. In such a setting, I want my Desktop or laptop to shine as bright if not brighter. Forgive me XFCE4 afficianados, but XFCE just looks like something Doogie Howser may have put together.

I did not know this. All I knew was that there was not a link or a statement that said, "hey want to install more themes? Go to this sight and click or make install foo theme." As I've stated, I am unwilling to put the same effort into a desktop that I would put into an app. A computer is a tool, the desktop is a tool interface, for work, play and configuring apps as needed or for fun. I see no reason to expend time configuring an interface unless the information is right there. If it's not there, then I lose faith in the designers of the Desktop because they are then leaving me to the mercy of what I can Google on my own. The result of configuring a desktop using information from threads that do not originate from the creators of the desktop could be the increased risk of being left with a non-functional desktop. True, this risk exist with following directions from the XFCE authors, but I believe that this risk is increased when following that which is written by third parties. I am willing to take this risk with an app but not with my desktop. In short, from the first moment of use, my desktop needs to perform as I need it to perform or it must come with or point me to expertly written and organized documentation. As it pertains to documentation, one can easily (well sometimes) glean the decade in which the author of said documentation recieved their degree, just by the documentation alone and not all documentation is created equal.

No one has said anything about LXDE although wwe've covered Fluxbox, Gnome, KDE, Openbox and XFCE. Does anyone know anything about LXDE?
MTK358 or Rkelen, any thoughts?

I never tried LXDE because I couldn't get it to work.

It uses Openbox as the window manager, they don't have their own "LXDE Window Manager".

I have also used its file manager, PCManFM. It's pretty nice, but one thing I hate about it is in desktop mode, it puts a folder on my desktop called "My Documents" <shiver>. I wonder if the author ever considered that that would repel many Linux users with memories of W$'s horrible directory hierarchy?

I just read through some of my temporary dyslexia woes. To clarify, yes, I prefer Gnomes default options with respect to configuration, appearance and themes. There are websites entitled "Gnome Look" and "Gnome Art." There are probably more if I look.

Yep, more temporary dyslexia on my part. I actually prefer FUNCTION over form. However, as I stated before, on my machine, the only noticeable difference between Gnome and XFCE is the superior boot speed of XFCE. This means that I can afford to indulge my appreciation of appearance without sacrificing performance. Using your analogy, looks like a Mclaren but performs like a Lamborghini

No, I've never, ever, ever had a positive experience with KDE, never. As I said, when I first saw KDE, I loved its look, so I really wanted to learn it. Additionally, I just wanted to use that which was best for me, so I gave KDE my best efforts on more than one occasion, and every experience was horrid!

KDE on Kubuntu 2007: Problematic too numerous to detail.
KDE on PCLinox 2008: Horrible! Every path to an app spans the entire screen!? Example: Click start, select icon, another menu opens, select icon, yet another menu opens, select icon, another menu opens, select icon, another menu opens, select icon, another menu opens. Great! Now the lower 1/3 of the desktop is obscured by the KDE start menu and oh wait! Oops! I do not see the app for which I was searching. Repeat process twice more. Found the app, finally. By which time I'd forgotten what I wanted to do with app that I FINALLY found. Two paths to the firewall! Why?! Write down the file path or just launch it from the terminal, which I never did, too drained and disappointed! Note: Konqueror, firefox, kreader and the dvd player were the only apps that just jumped out at me and were easy to find.
Default KDE Opensuse 10.3 Click Start and the main window opens. Click an Icon and then the Icons in the current menu change. NOTE: after clicking on an icon, note that another menu WILL NOT OPEN. It is only the icons in the current menu (the one and only menu) that change. Repeat with each new icon a few times. If I somehow do find the app that I sought, I would need six more attempts to find it again.
KDE 4.x? plasma on Arch 2.6.33, my current desktop and laptop. Cannot adjust the taskbar's size nor the app launchers' locations on the taskbar with the Cashew like object!!!??! Yes, it's refered to as a Cashew like object. Anyway, after an hour on the web, the KDE forums, and after uttering multiple expletives never before heard by human ears, I found a video that detailed how to use the cashew like thingamajiggy to manipulate the taskbar in KDE plasma. Are they serious? If they think that this makes for a positive (expletive deleted) welcoming experience, then they are retarded. While my speech represents a departure from eloquence, the etiquette conveyed is commiserate with my KDE 4.xx.? plasma experience.
KDE in general: I do not like my file manager to be a browser too. This seems like a security risk ala windows. Konqueror as a browser does not have add-ons like firefox. I cannot use what I learned about firefox and internet explorer and apply it to the konqueror browser. However, what I know of Firefox and Internet Explorer applies to the Opera Browser. Konqueror is no longer a default option in Slax, a fact that I feels vindicates my anti Konquerer sentiments.
Gnome is very organized!Gnome provided me with a very positive introduction to Linux! Indeed, there are Linux gurus who still use Gnome, and it tends to be more popular in the USA then KDE.

We lose 40-50 celsius between the height of summer and the height winter, so it was easy to adjust. Also, the colder days were full of bright sunlight reflecting off of snow and crystal blue (slightly smog tinted) skys. The air was clean and invigorating, made one glad to be alive. Here in southern California, going from a warm sunny relatively dry 20 to 10 celsius over a night after weeks in 20-27 celsius weather is a shock, especially since the cooler weather's dank,windy darkly clouded and sometimes rainy skys iare in stark contrast to the previous day. Thermal shock, often underdressed. Great weather 80% of the time if near the coast. Inland is a desert.

I've yet to get it to get it to work either. There are a few remaining configuration options which could work, but I refuse. Gnome without a GDM is my main, and XFCE4 is is my backup. I really like PCMANFM. However, it file renaming ability is not on par with nautilus as PCMANFM can't simutaneously rename multiple files. Also, it defaults to opening new tabs in root for some reason. Now that Nautilus has been improved, I use it often.

since the question is about gnome or kde, i skip my vision towards alternatives in relation to the two mentioned.

My personal experiences with the latest KDE SC "stable" release is that it's very unstable (apps suddenly crashing, or KDE as a whole), and very very slow, compared to Gnome.
3.5.x series of KDE, where much faster, and WAY more stable.
I think the KDE team has killed themselves, by going the way KDE 4.X is heading too.
(new frameworks, complete redesign of apps etc etc)

Stability is key to enduser experiences, not the eyecandy (visual appearances, not adding any real enhancements in productivity).

To give you a comparison in the other spectrum of OS'es:
KDE 4 series feel like, windows ME/9X, opposed to KDE 3.5.x which feels like, windows 2000/XP sp3.

Gnome, although they have changed quite a lot under the hood, is still the most stable and fastest of the two.

I enjoyed KDE 3.? in Debian Lenny.

But IMO KDE4 with Plasma is a total disaster.

That sounds like a job for your terminal.

???

How is that even possible without the password?

I could never gen Gnomes file manager (Nautilus?) to see my network folders, no matter which distro I tried. Kongueror and now Dolphin can. Now that was about 3 years ago, but it's too late, I've learned KDE and not likely to change. Although I liked the simpler/cleaner look of Gnome.

Never, mind! Good point.
To clarify, right-clicking a directory in Nautilus and then choosing "open in new tab"results in the selected directory opening in a new tab. In PCMANFM, if the one is root, the same process will result in the root folder opening in a new tab, somewhat annoying.
This is does not happen when PCMANFM is launched by a regular user. However, I sometimes switch from the terminal, I sometimes switch from root to regular so frequently that facts sometimes blur, especially if my mind is not in "mentally log events" mode.

People do not like to change, especially if they're comfortable with something. I would say. Although I use Gnome, I use WICD for anything network related, not Gnome networking. There is PCMANFM which is file manager that works well in Gnome according to another and my experience with Gnome and Tinycore. the latest version of nautilus is superior to the older versions to which you refer.
Do a backup. Install Gnome, and PCMANFM. Install WICD if Gnome networking is not for you. Give it a week. If you hate the experience, go back to KDE. My point is that I believe we should give everything a reasonable chance to fail or succeed. From there we can objectively pick that which works best for us.

I still think that the perfect window manager for me would be Openbox with rounded corner themes and some less verbose config file format than XML, but appearently that doesn't exist.

GNOME Shell is by far the best choice for simplicity. There is only one panel instead of two; window management has been simplified with an overview of all workspaces and windows; a menu for the current application has been added; the calendar and clock, complete with preferences and transparency, has been moved to the center of the panel from the right side; the system tray has been toned down and moved to the bottom of the screen where it is less distractive and you have the option to ignore or view the messages; and various other changes have been made in order to ensure that the user is in control and that GNOME looks better than it has before.

Your words prove why there is no such thing as "better for simplicity"
At best, there can only be that which is deemed to be acceptable by most members of a sample group.

I have an upper panel and a lower panel
Upper panel: Left side has custom menu and five frequently used apps;
Center section has clock calender and weather; right side has two notes, sound network

Lower panel is where Compiz, all tabs and windows (browser and fiel manager)reside.

For me, this is best. For others maybe not. Where does simple end and uselessly Spartan begin and according to who?