What Are Desktop Environments and Window Managers, and Why Do You Need Both?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between desktop environments and window managers, their necessity, and user experiences with various systems. Participants explore theoretical and practical aspects of graphical user interfaces in computing, particularly in relation to Linux and its alternatives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants define a desktop environment as encompassing a window manager along with other tools like file managers and task managers, while a window manager specifically manages the display and interaction of windows.
  • One participant argues that using only a window manager, such as Fluxbox, can lead to better performance by reducing resource usage compared to a full desktop environment.
  • Another participant clarifies that environments like KDE and Gnome are not exclusive to Linux and can operate on various platforms, including Windows and FreeBSD.
  • A user expresses frustration with the performance of KDE on older hardware, comparing it unfavorably to Windows 98 and seeking recommendations for lightweight alternatives.
  • In response to the performance concerns, suggestions are made for lightweight window managers like Fluxbox and FVWM as potential solutions for older systems.
  • One participant inquires about the hardware specifications of another user to assess compatibility and performance issues, suggesting that driver updates might improve functionality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the necessity of desktop environments versus window managers, with some advocating for the use of both while others prefer a minimal setup. There is no consensus on the best graphical environment for older hardware, as experiences vary widely.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention specific hardware limitations, such as RAM and CPU speed, which may affect the performance of different desktop environments and window managers. The discussion does not resolve the performance issues raised, nor does it clarify the best configurations for older systems.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for users exploring graphical user interfaces in Linux, particularly those with older hardware looking for lightweight options, as well as those interested in the distinctions between desktop environments and window managers.

FulhamFan3
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
What is the difference between a desktop environment and a windows manager? Why do I need them both?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
A desktop environment consists of a window manager, file manager, task manager, configuration tools, etc. A window manager just handles how windows are displayed, what type of borders they have and how they react to user input.

KDE uses the KWin window manager while Gnome uses the Sawfish window manager.

Do you need both a desktop and a window manager: No. For example I only use the window manager called Fluxbox. I don't need a file manager or other gui based configuration tools because I use the command line for that stuff. The advantage of using just a window manager is that the desktop is much more responsive and your not wasting cpu cyles and memory on bloated software.

http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/
 
Just to clarify KDE, Gnome, or any other "Linux GUI" you speak of, are not just native to Linux only. It is technically incorrect to classify a GUI as Linux only. Environments such as Gnome and KDE can run on many platforms, including Cygwin in Windows, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc.

At the moment I use "Common Desktop Environment," commonly known as "CDE" as my primary environment. It features a file manager and standard apps, and uses very little CPU cycles.
 
Last edited:
I've been a windows/dos guy my whole life. I'm pretty much trying to find something that mirrors windows 3.1 where the graphical environment is pretty much a visual shell for DOS. I have a computer than ran windows 98 pretty competently(pentium 233). I've tried KDE and that was horribly slow and bloated. People tell me that redhat should work at least as well as Win98 but that's BS. They tell me for my system I can only run the command line but if Win98 runs well then some sort of linux GUI should work at least as well. Any recommendations?
 
FulhamFan3 said:
I've been a windows/dos guy my whole life. I'm pretty much trying to find something that mirrors windows 3.1 where the graphical environment is pretty much a visual shell for DOS. I have a computer than ran windows 98 pretty competently(pentium 233). I've tried KDE and that was horribly slow and bloated. People tell me that redhat should work at least as well as Win98 but that's BS. They tell me for my system I can only run the command line but if Win98 runs well then some sort of linux GUI should work at least as well. Any recommendations?

Like I said, there is no such thing as a "Linux GUI." Fluxbux, as dduardo has recommended, is pretty usable and features extensive menus. As a very, very lightweight WM, I'd recommend something like FVWM.
 
How much ram have you got FulhamFan3? What kind of video card? Updating the drivers/latest xserver might help.
 
64 MB ram on a 233 MHz. Video card is 8 MB orchid fahrenheit. It also has a Diamond Monster 3D add-on but I don't need that. I just want to run something to browse the web and check email without taking forever to open programs.
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 181 ·
7
Replies
181
Views
25K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K