Noob here but learning quite fast.While GNOME lacks many of the KDE features it's faster and easier to use. Will soon switch back. Also Gnome has always worked fine with XGL and Compiz / Emerald. KDE is a great project but ... maybe too complicated for me at the moment. Respect to the community.

Previously I used KDE and before that GNOME. Since Slack doesn't ships with GNOME (anymore), it was KDE. with Red Hat I have always loved GNOME better than KDE. But now in slack I tried XFCE and I think I am gonna stick with it. It_is light-weight and Its a new experience in DE for me and I feel good abt it. So I vote for XFCE. One repeated suggestion though, you should have put check boxes instead of radio buttons, It would have been just right.

Fluxbox.
And I think it's rather popular to be picked out in a separate item.

This is a very tough one for me to make up my mind about.

On one extreme you have a command prompt and on the other you have a full fledged GUI like Macintosh is famous for (obviously apple is not the inventors of the GUI, but IMHO they're one of entities that took the concept in a very well implemented direction. There have been some other good ones like Amiga though). The command line is very conducive for left-brained tasks while a very GUI-centric GUI is conducive to right-brained work.

A good example is how a programmer will tend to find that dealing with windows tends to get in the way of work flow and slows them down. It tends to be more optimal for that sort of mental process, to be more in touch with the metal with as little of abstraction from the machine as possible (to a point though, because if all abstraction was gone you would essentially be working directly in machine language lol and it would take forever to get anything done.). Whereas, if you are doing graphic design or the like, having to tweak with the system too much, tends to get in the way and stymies that sort of creative process. That sort of right-brained activity really needs thing very free flowing in a way to where things can be manipulated very visually so that you can play around with different graphical/visual elements and expirement until things look just right. Macs is a good example of how to cater to that need and work process.

The nice thing about Linux is that, due to it's open nature, it can be molded to cater to about just any need. It's all just really a matter of what people want to develop. Some programmers seem to knock DEs like GNOME and KDE, but they are important. They seem to be trying to go in the same direction as system such as Amiga and Apple, in that they're trying to create an environment that can be conducive to right-brained type of tasks. The fortunate thing is that there will still always be a console there as well. So there won't be the mistake that OSes like Windows and Mac make that alienate people who use computers for more left-brained types of things (a computer really needs to cater to both). The ideal computer is one that can be strong at anything that a computer can possibly be used for. Linux excels at this. Flexibility is probably one of it's strongest points (there are actually many others though). It's already established that Linux is a great OS for hackers, but it's not until more recently that it's starting to show potential to be great OS for just about everything. It's well on it's way to becoming the best all around OS period. Afterall it's bound to be, thanks to it's open nature that is inevitable since it's a system designed by user for users, and since there are all sorts of a users that value all sorts of different things, it's always evolving into becoming an OS that does more and more things really well.

Anyway, right now I'm back to using GNOME alot. I was messing around with a few WMs here and there, but I keep coming back to GNOME. I like it for the most part, but I think it really needs to have better window management. Things like auto-tiling and tabbing would really be a nice thing. I find that when I'm trying to do certain things, having to deal with manually manipulating windows, really slows things down and and gets in the way. I also wouldn't mind seeing it become more optimized to become a little more responsive. What I like about GNOME is it's simplicity. It doesn't try to overdo being tweakable. It more strives to be an interface that is conducive to certain sorts of tasks.

When I need to do system administration types of tasks, there really is no replacement for the console (bash prompt). For certain things, it's really good to be in direct control like that, but some sorts of task, it's not so ideal.

I'm in the process of experimenting with ratpoison and ion. I'm giving those a try. They seem to take alot of getting used to, but I have a feeling I'll find those ideal for certain things also. In a way, Linux really proves that having only one interface is never the best solution. The best solution is having tons of software and interfaces at your disposal for tackling all sorts of jobs. This increases the learning curve and time needed to put into figuring things out, but it always pays off in order of magnitude in the long run. It's like you could make a swiss army knife and it does ok as a tool for all sorts of jobs (tends to be more cumbersome for doing most tasks, but it will work when you're desperate), but it's always better to have a huge tool box full of good quality tools that are each designed for a specific purpose.

So I guess right now, it's GNOME and virtual consoles.

I know alot of threads like these usually get started because a person was probably having a hard time making up their mind about what desktop to use, or they were curious as to which ones to try next. The best bet, is to try any of them. Play around with them until you need a breather and leave them on the system. Use whatever you're used to, but when you get bored, try playing around with them some more. That way, you'll probably figure out some things the different WMs are really ideal for handling. Eventually though, you'll probably narrow it down to a few favorites that handle most of everything you need to do in a manner you like, between them.

Best advice you can get if thats your problem.

i've tried fluxbox, fvwm, gnome, kde, and xfce. i like and use fluxbox the most.

KDE is winning

They're all nice, but KDE is so much more integrated... but requires more resources, which fortunately, I have.

fluxbox here

used Gnome and KDE but liked KDE

I started on Gnome because the linux master from whom I learned is a Gnome fanatic.

I switched to Kde because a Kde app I wanted to use did not work well on Gnome. I now use no Gnome apps except Nautilus whenever I want to open a file from a browser because Konqueror makes file associations disappear.

With recent installations of Mandriva and PCLinuxOS, I've found that font sizes do not render correctly on Kde, so I switched to Xfce.

The desktop is singularly unappealing to begin but, after customising, it's very easy on the eye and very functional.

I had never noticed speed as a problem when using Kde but Xfce is much snappier. Even OpenOffice files open faster. I wish I'd made the move much earlier.

It is amazing how you don't notice how resource intensive some desktops are till you switch over isn't it?

I mostly use NiceWM at the moment. It is based on IceWm and is mostly compatable with it. I am working on Stewm which is loosely based on NiceWm and IceWM 1.0.4, sort of starting from scratch I like BlackBox 0.70 and I'm ok with fluxbox really not too crazy about the big boys kde and gnome.

I've been using ion3 for some time, and I rather like the way it maximises windows by default (as opposed to indienick way back on page 1). Which probably goes to show again that choice is one of Linux's greatest strengths (quite likely one of its greatest weaknesses at the same time).

While I mostly prefer ion over mouse-based window managers, it's sometimes a bit too, uhm, left-brainish (thanks for your thoughts on this, PingFloyd!). I'm currently testing wmii3, which has a more dynamical approach than ion and also can easily move windows to a floating layer, where they can be moved about pretty much like with "conventional" window managers. Apart from that, the sheer simplicity of the thing has a certain charme to it. The WM core has less than 6000 lines of code and is controlled via a virtual filesystem; the standard configuration uses a couple of short bash scripts to implement things like keyboard shortcuts and status bar.

tux is looking at fluxbox

I've tried many but i like kde and fluxbox the most. Mostly what i use now is fluxbox because kde takes too many resources that i dont have on my laptop. I use kde for some things i cant use in fluxbox.