F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Optimal setup for quick and agile desktop experience

Optimal setup for quick and agile desktop experience

Optimal setup for quick and agile desktop experience

H
hppy2bme
Junior Member
39
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM
#1
I looked into recommendations for desktop environments and found mixed info. What matters most is speed and smoothness, not just size. Based on what you described—good hardware (R7 1700, 16GB RAM, Intel 1070 Ti)—I’d lean toward environments known for responsiveness. Xfce or MATE often perform well with light setups, while KDE Plasma can be snappy if configured right. If you want the smoothest experience, go with something like XFCE or MATE; they balance speed and usability without sacrificing too much performance.
H
hppy2bme
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM #1

I looked into recommendations for desktop environments and found mixed info. What matters most is speed and smoothness, not just size. Based on what you described—good hardware (R7 1700, 16GB RAM, Intel 1070 Ti)—I’d lean toward environments known for responsiveness. Xfce or MATE often perform well with light setups, while KDE Plasma can be snappy if configured right. If you want the smoothest experience, go with something like XFCE or MATE; they balance speed and usability without sacrificing too much performance.

I
ISY_0815
Senior Member
566
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM
#2
In a complete setup, focus on systems without GTK-based components like KDE and LXQT. Your operating system and file structure also play a role. More background processes slow things down, just like in Windows. f2fs works better than ext4 with NVMe, but isn't compatible with all drives. xfs runs faster on HDDs compared to ext4, though it struggles with power failures.
I
ISY_0815
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM #2

In a complete setup, focus on systems without GTK-based components like KDE and LXQT. Your operating system and file structure also play a role. More background processes slow things down, just like in Windows. f2fs works better than ext4 with NVMe, but isn't compatible with all drives. xfs runs faster on HDDs compared to ext4, though it struggles with power failures.

M
mooaserti
Member
129
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM
#3
This might seem a controversial view, but despite the fact that lightweight X-based DEs/wms (LXQT, Xfce, i3, dwm) use less memory and are lighter, GNOME on Wayland performs better in my case. It feels more fluid, faster, and applications run smoother. The only noticeable slowdown occurs when opening the apps menu, likely due to loading from a slower storage device. If you're using an SSD, it should work fine. To be honest, this is just my personal observation. GNOME can be quite demanding, but on my system, Wayland helps offset that. The other Wayland options I've tried are KDE (which I haven't used) and sway (an i3-like tiling manager I don't prefer because of its tiling nature). One advantage is that DEs are straightforward to test—you can install as many as you like without hassle. Feel free to explore and discover what suits you best!
M
mooaserti
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM #3

This might seem a controversial view, but despite the fact that lightweight X-based DEs/wms (LXQT, Xfce, i3, dwm) use less memory and are lighter, GNOME on Wayland performs better in my case. It feels more fluid, faster, and applications run smoother. The only noticeable slowdown occurs when opening the apps menu, likely due to loading from a slower storage device. If you're using an SSD, it should work fine. To be honest, this is just my personal observation. GNOME can be quite demanding, but on my system, Wayland helps offset that. The other Wayland options I've tried are KDE (which I haven't used) and sway (an i3-like tiling manager I don't prefer because of its tiling nature). One advantage is that DEs are straightforward to test—you can install as many as you like without hassle. Feel free to explore and discover what suits you best!

S
SaNsY_Bo1
Junior Member
6
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM
#4
The main issue with Wayland remains its limited feature support and occasional conflicts with x11 apps. Gnome currently offers the strongest compatibility, largely due to Red Hat's involvement. For more details on KDE's Wayland challenges, check https://community.kde.org/Plasma/Wayland_Showstoppers
S
SaNsY_Bo1
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM #4

The main issue with Wayland remains its limited feature support and occasional conflicts with x11 apps. Gnome currently offers the strongest compatibility, largely due to Red Hat's involvement. For more details on KDE's Wayland challenges, check https://community.kde.org/Plasma/Wayland_Showstoppers

S
Star_Plex
Member
77
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM
#5
Fedora includes everything ready to go and set up nicely, which is great for Red Hat fans. I've experienced no problems with X11 applications yet, though I haven't tried advanced tools like multimedia editors or games. Results might differ depending on your setup.
S
Star_Plex
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM #5

Fedora includes everything ready to go and set up nicely, which is great for Red Hat fans. I've experienced no problems with X11 applications yet, though I haven't tried advanced tools like multimedia editors or games. Results might differ depending on your setup.

F
fantasy_miner
Member
166
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM
#6
Thanks for your feedback. It's clear you're still figuring things out, especially with the Ubuntu side of things. I understand why it's tricky—driver installations and Wi-Fi setup can be a headache. On Ubuntu, the installation process was straightforward and even let you pick GPU drivers easily. In contrast, what you're experiencing on Ubuntu seems to involve major issues like screen tearing, which isn't common on Windows. You mentioned a Windows machine with GPU passthrough working fine last time, so maybe that's a different setup. If you're leaning toward Kubuntu or even Ubuntu Budgie, those are worth exploring since they’re known for stability and good driver support. I’d suggest testing them now and see how they handle the GPU and screen settings. Let me know what you try!
F
fantasy_miner
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM #6

Thanks for your feedback. It's clear you're still figuring things out, especially with the Ubuntu side of things. I understand why it's tricky—driver installations and Wi-Fi setup can be a headache. On Ubuntu, the installation process was straightforward and even let you pick GPU drivers easily. In contrast, what you're experiencing on Ubuntu seems to involve major issues like screen tearing, which isn't common on Windows. You mentioned a Windows machine with GPU passthrough working fine last time, so maybe that's a different setup. If you're leaning toward Kubuntu or even Ubuntu Budgie, those are worth exploring since they’re known for stability and good driver support. I’d suggest testing them now and see how they handle the GPU and screen settings. Let me know what you try!

E
Error_Sans55
Member
245
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM
#7
Lumina offers a light weight with quick reaction times. LXQt and KDE provide comparable performance. XFCE leans toward speed in that area, while CDE stands out as a top choice. Pantheon shines as a god, Budgie performs well, Gnome works on powerful systems, most window managers excel here, TDE delivers great results, and that's the summary.
E
Error_Sans55
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM #7

Lumina offers a light weight with quick reaction times. LXQt and KDE provide comparable performance. XFCE leans toward speed in that area, while CDE stands out as a top choice. Pantheon shines as a god, Budgie performs well, Gnome works on powerful systems, most window managers excel here, TDE delivers great results, and that's the summary.

V
ValerieDB
Junior Member
47
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM
#8
For a seamless desktop setup, particularly with contemporary hardware, the selection goes beyond just picking an application environment. It's crucial to avoid mechanical hard drives and opt for an SSD instead. This significantly enhances performance compared to other options like changing the environment itself. Some discussions mention GTK as being slower, but I haven't personally experienced that issue since using Plasma or KDE for a long time. Their interfaces have always felt streamlined, with essential features readily available. Unity's approach is similar, though its file selection prompts can be frustrating. Personally, I lean toward Plasma because of its consistent design and familiarity. Unity works well too, especially when it was originally named that way. However, I'm open to any environment as long as it runs smoothly on your system—especially with 4GB+ RAM and an SSD. GTK-based desktops may have minor hiccups, but they usually resolve themselves. I'm currently using Arch Linux, which adds another layer of complexity. My advice would be to experiment with different environments and see what feels most intuitive for you. The "performance" gap between major desktops often comes down to personal preference rather than objective speed. UI style and design choices differ greatly, so the choice should match your comfort level.
V
ValerieDB
11-24-2021, 04:58 PM #8

For a seamless desktop setup, particularly with contemporary hardware, the selection goes beyond just picking an application environment. It's crucial to avoid mechanical hard drives and opt for an SSD instead. This significantly enhances performance compared to other options like changing the environment itself. Some discussions mention GTK as being slower, but I haven't personally experienced that issue since using Plasma or KDE for a long time. Their interfaces have always felt streamlined, with essential features readily available. Unity's approach is similar, though its file selection prompts can be frustrating. Personally, I lean toward Plasma because of its consistent design and familiarity. Unity works well too, especially when it was originally named that way. However, I'm open to any environment as long as it runs smoothly on your system—especially with 4GB+ RAM and an SSD. GTK-based desktops may have minor hiccups, but they usually resolve themselves. I'm currently using Arch Linux, which adds another layer of complexity. My advice would be to experiment with different environments and see what feels most intuitive for you. The "performance" gap between major desktops often comes down to personal preference rather than objective speed. UI style and design choices differ greatly, so the choice should match your comfort level.