if youre comparing DEs, i think it would be better if you use the vanilla versions of them. it gives a better idea of how similar or different they are
I disagree, it's better to use one that is set up sensibly by a distribution, particularly in the case of xfce which is very defaults-agnostic and whose defaults are for a very bare bones and less-usable setup
While it wouldn't go on my main system, I'm rather interested in LXQt, of those two. Also, lightweight desktop environments can also make high performance machines a lot more snappier...
I prefer XFCE over LXQt. It has right balance with resources and customisation. On my desktop, I am running SparkyLinux GameOver edition and on an older Samsung Chromebook (dual-core and 4 gigs of mem) I have converted it to be able to use MX Linux. Both use XFCE and run great.
LXqt with Openbox is the snappiest thing that happened in Linux DE world. It in fact can use as much memory as lxde does, with some tweaking, and it outperforms lxde. It's not that lxde is bad, it's because of QT is excellent and much, much better fwk than GTK, and the LXQt developers are utilizing lxqt much, much better than fellas from kde/plasma for instance. I am using LXqt for two years and any other DE seems like overbloat right now to me. I am not counting in standalone wm desks, ofcourse.
@@Zero11s I agree. In fact, I coulnd't agree more. But the QT it self, it is perfect to some extent. Much better fwk than GTK. And trust me, LXQt is beautiful. Even plasma/kde applications (konsole and kate for example) are working like a charm on top of LXQt and are snappy like mungosees. LXQt and KDE/plasma are made with the same fwk, but are completely different universes.
Thanks for noticing that KDE and LXQt are based on the same framework. It's also worth noting that LXQt, unlike XFCE, already has Wayland support, which is great if you want to use Waydroid (it allows you to directly use Android applications on Linux). By the way, does Openbox need to be installed manually or is it used by default in LXQt? And what tweaks do you use to reduce RAM consumption? I'm asking because I intend to use a great Debian-based distribution with LXQt ("SpiralLinux") on my not yet refurbished laptop, which has only one RAM slot and only integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics - so I'm stuck with 4GB of RAM (and upgrading to 8GB is expensive and impractical for me, as it is a companion to my powerful main PC)
@@NAKADZI Not sure about a clean LXQt install, but Lubuntu comes with Openbox, which should be the default window manager for LXQt. But the Debian LXQt iso comes with Xfwm4 for some reason I never could understand. To reduce RAM consumption I think there's not much to do at first really, because LXQt is very barebones by default. You could disable some autostart software in session settings, for example. If I need less resource consumption I just log in into a TTY session, and even that doesn't make a big difference. I would love to know some tricks to reduce resource consumption too. Although Lubuntu on my 4GB RAM laptop never exceeded 2.5GB RAM usage which a bunch of stuff open. LXQt is amazing
Never been a fan of xfce, but it looks like it has improved over the last couple of decades. lxde was a few gui tools away from the perfect DE and lxqt is a bit disappointing, but lxqt is what I mostly use (lubuntu) for now. TDE is the best I've used, but it's not well integrated in any full distro...I'd have a permanent home if someone came out with a Tubuntu
@@astonwhitworth7561 Yep, my kids use Q4OS since the 3.13 release. The PCLinuxOS community has a couple of very promising TDE editions that have improved a lot recently as well.
@@albussd I've been very pleasantly surprised with the latest q4os TDE implementations! my kids have used that full time for 6 months now...I like MX the most of the newer distros I've met, definitely a usable xfce implementation...
@@astonwhitworth7561 I appreciate the heads-up on Q4OS. I downloaded both versions and ran them in a virtual machine. I'm not sure what having KDE sat on Q4OS gives you above other systems other than higher memory usage, but no matter, it was the other version I was actually interested in. Turns out I wasn't, lol. God it is awful in every respect, aesthetics, menu system and resource usage for a start. I wondered why it was so laggy until I finally found the system monitor (It was where you expect it, but a group icon suggested it was elsewhere)...It had eaten 3/4 of the 2GB I had given it and the only thing I was running was the system monitor! I do appreciate the opportunity to try Q4OS and I wish the developers all the best, but I would suggest that anyone who visits this video chooses one of the featured GUI in a better known distro rather than the pitiful effort that is Q4OS.
I have a question. I soon plan on switching to linux, and I'm wondering, are these lightweight DE's able to run things like any other linux? Am I missing something out if I choose a lightweight DE(not counting the customization)?
xfce's whisker menu is more like windows 7, lxqt's is more like windows 95 or 98. Yeah..I prefer xfce's. Also at 8:21. Notice how lxqt's "monitor settings" didn't have a gui way to easily adjust the hz aka framerate of the display..where as in cinnamon, xfce, and mate all ( since guaranteed mint 20 cinnamon for example) have it. Thus at least on LUBUNTU, you'll have to use xrandr or whatever alternative yet equally powerful terminal command line hz altering command to do it ( just like having to use xrander in mint 19 cinnamon and older cinnamon versions of Mint..which was a pita)...unless that Advanced tab/button housing that hz adjustment drop down menu..which this guy..DIDN'T show. Was hoping though...Guess I"ll have to try it out and see ( 144hz monitor here). Thanks for the vid though.
I use 95/98 menu settings for my Windows 7 PC. With a cascading menu, you can have subcategories of games , making it a lot easier than scrolling down an incredibly long single list.
I'm not vey savy on any distro.. My daughter (7) plays around with Mint XFCE.. And not sure how but, she manage to move the wife icon to the center on the bar 😆 .. Now i can't figure out how to return it to the original place on the side... I right click on the icon but, i only get the network options...
I run Linux Mint 19.3 Cinnamon, but I use Lxqt DE with Ice WM. When I want peppiness to my computing session I boot into Lxqt w/ICE WM. If I am in the mood for Cinnamon I boot into that. I noticed for the appearance for the background settings, I have to configure that in Cinnamon, then I can go back into Lxqt and ICE WM. I love the speed of Linux Mint with Lxqt DE and Ice WM. For the most part, I am in LxQT DE for my Mint sessions. Unless I am changing my background wallpaper settings, that's the only thing I jump into Cinnamon for.
lubuntu 18 was a beast! I tried LXLE distro to have that back but I was dissapointed. lxde with xfce wm and tools was great. but now I am mastering the art of window manager only so I dont need DEs or distros anymore.
I used ubuntu for about 6 months, peppermint for 2 or 3 years and now lubuntu lubuntu seems fastest though perhaps its because my old HDD was old and full?
xfce on a base install uses around 350 megs on void, those preconfigured distros bloat it quite a lot. cinnamon base is around 750 and i'm not sure about plasma, but it should be between 400 and 500
@@francescovolpini I heard Base Cinnamon is around 500 megs. In Debian base XFCE is around 330 megs abd even if you add bunch of stuff it wont go over 360 (better menu, plank, teansparency, better icons and themes). How can people recommend something as low spec if it uses 500 megs.....
@@abhabh6896 i don't know how it can be that bloated. some distros ship with window managers, arcolinux with dwm and systemd uses those very same 500 megs, while it should be using less than 150.. :( and i believe cinnamon is in the mid 700s as far as ram conspumtion
@@francescovolpini Opensuse with iceWB used around 50MB. Some of these DE WM setups are really ridiculously unfair. pepermint, the "King of low end hardware: uses 400 megs in cold boot, more if you opened and closed programs....wow.... Debian XFCE stomps every single one of those "low end hardware" distros when it comes to ram......and if you use LXQT....well, there is no competition.
I had to switch away from any downstream distribution of Debian in Ubuntu flavors and install Debian with XFCE. The improvement is very noticeable. I am sure the same is true of LXQT, I just haven't tried it yet. Biggest disappointment in these DEs on Debian is the lack of app-store and package managers. These can be compensated for with a distribution like Lubuntu of Xubuntu, but I feel you get a lot more fluff along with the package managers and app store which cause all the resource drain.
Some apps offer qt or gtk versions. Which to choose, and why? Xfce always has Gunnar. Others offer Pcman in either of 2 or 3 versions. Which and why choose these?
A "desktop environment" is a combination of a window manager, desktop, and an integrated collection of commonly-used applications, such as file managers and terminal emulators. Every program explicitly offered through the environment is designed to work together, with the same look, feel, and operational concepts. For programs outside of the DE core list, whenever possible try to stick to the same base type as your DE. A gtk-based app will run more efficiently and integrate more cleanly on a gtk-based desktop than a qt one, and vice versa. It should automatically adopt the same theme, dialog, and widget styles. Other than that, it's entirely up to you. You can run non-native applications if you wish. Just be aware that every program needs to have at least a portion of its environment's background libraries and services installed as well, which can often mean a large and heavy installation for even one small program. You may also have to do some leg work if you want them to look and function (roughly) the same as the rest of your desktop (e.g. finding a suitable cross-platform theme). I personally just use whatever program provides the features and workflow that I like most, regardless of the environment it was made for. I go for function over style, as long my system can handle it.
I was investigating LXQT for a more modern look n less ram usage but ive decided to stay with XFCE... primarily because xfce has a better start menu n the themes in lxqt are not impacting the applications at all. So dark mode is not great by default in lxqt... im sure there must be a way but its a bit inconvinient... xfce on the other hand comes with all the GTK+ apps n a tight integration for skins n themes.
I used for a long time calculate linux. When they begun, I think so, to make an lxqt relaese, I've tryed it. And I can't say that lxqt is so much friendlier to the RAM. In my case I had bad experience with 4GB RAM & a lot of firefox windows & tabs. Most with different youtube videos)) So I still use xfce4. But the really good investion for this, was to buy a 8GB RAM. Now have 11,something GB RAM, almost is fine.
@@theinceptor3672 Yeah. I understand it. But when I started xfce4 DE witjout opening a programm, and started then lxqt DE, the difference of the RAM was something about 2%. It was before upgrade the RAM. But the new xfce4 v4.16... I think I still use it. But the new version of xfce is not so great like the previos, exspecially for me. I like more the older one
Depends on the distro, usally gnome and cinnamon are the heaviest, kde and most other DEs are average, and finally lxqt and xfce are the lowest. Edit: oh btw weight isn't a huuugggee deal on higher-end stuff
Best LXQt was Redcore Linux but now is Calculate Linux or even try Artix LXQt which is what based on Qt and latest Gtk based XFCE is a little bit heavier than LXQt.
Can I run Xubuntu in my 2GB Ram PC ? Which one should I go for... Lxqt or Xfce ? I'm new to Linux so it should be easy to use. And also does adding good themes affect the performance ?
Adding themes affected my performance a lot. I want performance and I will rather have an ugly theme as a sacrifice. If you also want performance you should install lxqt first. I don't have any scientific reason but I have seen enough of lxqt feeling snappier.
I have a 12 years old laptop and had try different distros and DE s to see which is the most light for it. In my case, I find LXQT a bit lighter than XFCE.
Regarding toolkits: There are some primary differences between the QT3.x and 4.x series. Specially in light of forking, and historic Linux Desktop Markers. But yeah, I don't mind ignoring Gnome and GTK3.
I compared by myself playing a video in parole in both XFCE and LXQT, for the same video. Parole in XFCE has less than 30% average CPU consumption, meanwhile Parole in LXQT has 60% average CPU consumption. So I love XFCE the most
Defaul theme wise yes, but XFCE has a more consistent look and feel, thats why i prefer it over LXQt, also after personalization it can looks as nice as any DE and with the plus of beeing more consistent than LXQt.
@@doe2218 lxqt is the lightest but it looks so lame on the other side gnome which is kinda heavy but looks amazing and got a lot of futures but if you want a good looking lightweight de then go with xfce
I like some of the look of XFCE and it's LIGHTNESS--- but they say it's "highly customizable"- and I tried and I can't figure out how.. I'm a kde man- an I KNOW how it's customizable- but this doesn't look like it at all.. I might SWITCH to it -- if I knew how!!!
Guess I'll stick with my highly tricked-out (Debian) XFCE, but now I am wondering more about OpenBox. My biggest fear is having things break when I update and upgrade.
At 2:23, I can't get over how you pronounce Xubuntu and Lubuntu. Gosh, it's not X-Ubuntu or L-Ubuntu. It's pronounced as one word, the x making the z sound, like "zubuntu," and it should be obvious how to pronounce Lubuntu, like "loobuntu" or something. BUT! Thanks for this comparison. Both are great for low-powered computers. I prefer Xfce on Xubuntu. The stock install of Xfce is pretty bad, but Xubuntu adds a few things to it. It's super customizable, though and with themes, you can make it look really modern. It's also a whole lot easier to configure than KDE's Plasma. Plasma's options are super great, but Xfce is just easy in that you just right-click on whatever you want to change, click "Preferences" and you're there. That said, looking at the version of Lubuntu you showcased, it doesn't look bad at all. Yes, its default menu leaves a lot to be desired, but it gets the job done. If only LXQt saved as much memory as its predecessor LXDE does. Also, Qt is intended to be pronounced like "cute" though many people resent that pronunciation, just like most people don't know how to properly pronounce GNOME and MATE. Thanks for the video!
@@fxvlad Oh, those are a bit harder to explain in text. GNOME is intended to be pronounced "guh-nome." Looking it up, I found this is called a "hard G" pronunciation, same as the word "glove." This is because it's part of the GNU Project, also pronounced with a hard G like "guh new." But, many people argue it's pronounced "nome" with a silent G, like a garden gnome. I say either is right, since people typically pick one or the other, and argue over which is right. As for MATE, it is a Spanish word, as it was created by a Spanish team. According to their website, it's pronounced like "ma-tay." You'll find many of the apps in the MATE suite are Spanish words as well. Hope this helps!
@@fxvlad I listen to a lot of Linux podcasts, such as Linux Unplugged and Destination Linux. They talk a lot about this stuff, so I hear the names a lot. It's a great way to interact with the community. Also, I Google a lot of what I don't know.
lxde/lxqt by default do not include a compositor, not even a powermanager and stuff while xfce will be lighter once you remove the blings, and is a much more desktop-oriented packages. there is really no sense comparing apples to oranges when they are not run with the same configuration, not to mention comparing ram usage while on linux. Linux is now windows.
Dude you’re confused. I can strip all DE to be as light as possible, that not the stock config. It’s 2 lightweight DE going head to head, so it is fair.
Lxqt is butt ugly. XFCE is light, but beautiful. For me lxqt was even using more RAM than XFCE, it's almost as if it requires extra resources to be that ugly.
The benchmarking remains fairly accurate independently. I also showed what my ram results were with the Ubuntu variants. XFCE runs around 500, LXQt is around 400, and LXDE is right under 200. With this much of a difference benchmarking between these environments is irrelevant to a vast majority of people, but still worth mention.
@@gurbuz12345 XP is both 32 and 64bit if you're gonna make an argument at least know wtf you are talking about please. Its def outdated though you are correct on that.
@@gurbuz12345 Seems like you have a 10 IQ and really need to research before you spout off to an IT PRO. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition
I guess that depends what you're used to customizing. In my experience, Lxqt can be extremely customizable. Just need to know how to do it, as with everything.
In my experiences KDE felt very sluggish. Not so much in general performance but the whole thing of it felt bloated? Like, from every animation and such I felt I had a slower experience on it then I did while running xfce4.
thats a lie, KDE uses 3GB here after cold boot also uses more CPU and GPU (5% on idle) while XFCE uses about 400MB after cold boot and uses 1% of CPU and 0% of GPU.
Sorry for the re-uploaded. On the last video I made a mistake running a older version of lubuntu. Hope you all enjoy!
Such a nice comparison. I really enjoy XFCE, I think it's pretty cool DE and very customizable with less effort than LXQt or LXDE.
I too, am a great fan of Xfce
But now that I've got a good device, I'm gonna smash KDE on it, so it's gonna be my first KDE distro.
if youre comparing DEs, i think it would be better if you use the vanilla versions of them. it gives a better idea of how similar or different they are
Is there something wrong with the vanilla version?
@T.Vaince .
I disagree, it's better to use one that is set up sensibly by a distribution, particularly in the case of xfce which is very defaults-agnostic and whose defaults are for a very bare bones and less-usable setup
While it wouldn't go on my main system, I'm rather interested in LXQt, of those two.
Also, lightweight desktop environments can also make high performance machines a lot more snappier...
yup, for shitty laptops it is a must, but for high-power machines it can be useful as well.
I prefer XFCE over LXQt. It has right balance with resources and customisation. On my desktop, I am running SparkyLinux GameOver edition and on an older Samsung Chromebook (dual-core and 4 gigs of mem) I have converted it to be able to use MX Linux. Both use XFCE and run great.
LXDE is incredibly sleek. On my Raspi PI it uses 257 MB - and that is with GUI + teamviewer and webserver running. XFCE need about 580 MB idle.
Thanks for sharing that info
LXqt with Openbox is the snappiest thing that happened in Linux DE world. It in fact can use as much memory as lxde does, with some tweaking, and it outperforms lxde. It's not that lxde is bad, it's because of QT is excellent and much, much better fwk than GTK, and the LXQt developers are utilizing lxqt much, much better than fellas from kde/plasma for instance. I am using LXqt for two years and any other DE seems like overbloat right now to me. I am not counting in standalone wm desks, ofcourse.
KDE is unstable crap, my Kubuntu shit itself and I replaced it with ubuntu mate
@@Zero11s I agree. In fact, I coulnd't agree more. But the QT it self, it is perfect to some extent. Much better fwk than GTK. And trust me, LXQt is beautiful. Even plasma/kde applications (konsole and kate for example) are working like a charm on top of LXQt and are snappy like mungosees. LXQt and KDE/plasma are made with the same fwk, but are completely different universes.
Thanks for noticing that KDE and LXQt are based on the same framework.
It's also worth noting that LXQt, unlike XFCE, already has Wayland support, which is great if you want to use Waydroid (it allows you to directly use Android applications on Linux).
By the way, does Openbox need to be installed manually or is it used by default in LXQt? And what tweaks do you use to reduce RAM consumption?
I'm asking because I intend to use a great Debian-based distribution with LXQt ("SpiralLinux") on my not yet refurbished laptop, which has only one RAM slot and only integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics - so I'm stuck with 4GB of RAM (and upgrading to 8GB is expensive and impractical for me, as it is a companion to my powerful main PC)
@@NAKADZI Not sure about a clean LXQt install, but Lubuntu comes with Openbox, which should be the default window manager for LXQt. But the Debian LXQt iso comes with Xfwm4 for some reason I never could understand.
To reduce RAM consumption I think there's not much to do at first really, because LXQt is very barebones by default. You could disable some autostart software in session settings, for example. If I need less resource consumption I just log in into a TTY session, and even that doesn't make a big difference. I would love to know some tricks to reduce resource consumption too. Although Lubuntu on my 4GB RAM laptop never exceeded 2.5GB RAM usage which a bunch of stuff open. LXQt is amazing
Very nice explanation dude, you compare those very well and comprehensive, keep up the good content
I like both XFCE and LXQT, and also MATE.
Never been a fan of xfce, but it looks like it has improved over the last couple of decades. lxde was a few gui tools away from the perfect DE and lxqt is a bit disappointing, but lxqt is what I mostly use (lubuntu) for now. TDE is the best I've used, but it's not well integrated in any full distro...I'd have a permanent home if someone came out with a Tubuntu
Try Q4OS.
@@astonwhitworth7561 Yep, my kids use Q4OS since the 3.13 release. The PCLinuxOS community has a couple of very promising TDE editions that have improved a lot recently as well.
Well if you used XFCE very long time ago, then you'll be pleasantly surprised to see it now. It's one of the best, overall.
@@albussd I've been very pleasantly surprised with the latest q4os TDE implementations! my kids have used that full time for 6 months now...I like MX the most of the newer distros I've met, definitely a usable xfce implementation...
@@astonwhitworth7561 I appreciate the heads-up on Q4OS. I downloaded both versions and ran them in a virtual machine. I'm not sure what having KDE sat on Q4OS gives you above other systems other than higher memory usage, but no matter, it was the other version I was actually interested in. Turns out I wasn't, lol. God it is awful in every respect, aesthetics, menu system and resource usage for a start. I wondered why it was so laggy until I finally found the system monitor (It was where you expect it, but a group icon suggested it was elsewhere)...It had eaten 3/4 of the 2GB I had given it and the only thing I was running was the system monitor!
I do appreciate the opportunity to try Q4OS and I wish the developers all the best, but I would suggest that anyone who visits this video chooses one of the featured GUI in a better known distro rather than the pitiful effort that is Q4OS.
I have a question. I soon plan on switching to linux, and I'm wondering, are these lightweight DE's able to run things like any other linux? Am I missing something out if I choose a lightweight DE(not counting the customization)?
Yes they are. They will be able to run every application just like other desktop environments.
@@zen608 thanks
@@tazz7390 No problem, enjoy the Linux journey and have fun :)
Robloxian from Robloxity so what is the advantage of the heavier ones?
@@ladymuck2 Sorry if I am late with this reply but heavier ones usually look better because they have things like trasparancy, and smooth animations.
8:20 Why didn't you just type "monitor" in the search bar at the bottom of the start menu?
xfce's whisker menu is more like windows 7, lxqt's is more like windows 95 or 98. Yeah..I prefer xfce's. Also at 8:21. Notice how lxqt's "monitor settings" didn't have a gui way to easily adjust the hz aka framerate of the display..where as in cinnamon, xfce, and mate all ( since guaranteed mint 20 cinnamon for example) have it.
Thus at least on LUBUNTU, you'll have to use xrandr or whatever alternative yet equally powerful terminal command line hz altering command to do it ( just like having to use xrander in mint 19 cinnamon and older cinnamon versions of Mint..which was a pita)...unless that Advanced tab/button housing that hz adjustment drop down menu..which this guy..DIDN'T show. Was hoping though...Guess I"ll have to try it out and see ( 144hz monitor here).
Thanks for the vid though.
I use 95/98 menu settings for my Windows 7 PC. With a cascading menu, you can have subcategories of games , making it a lot easier than scrolling down an incredibly long single list.
I've set an alias to execute xrandr. Less pita
I found, and still find, LXDE quite liberating.
Nice comparison! I always wanted to know the difference between XFCE and LXQt 😃
I'm not vey savy on any distro.. My daughter (7) plays around with Mint XFCE.. And not sure how but, she manage to move the wife icon to the center on the bar 😆 .. Now i can't figure out how to return it to the original place on the side... I right click on the icon but, i only get the network options...
WHat about them and Wayland? I'm using Cinamon currently and that sadly is far away from Wayland and therefore still uses X11...
Excellent! Very good review!
Ram usage better on lxqt changed from xfce to lxqt.
I run Linux Mint 19.3 Cinnamon, but I use Lxqt DE with Ice WM. When I want peppiness to my computing session I boot into Lxqt w/ICE WM. If I am in the mood for Cinnamon I boot into that. I noticed for the appearance for the background settings, I have to configure that in Cinnamon, then I can go back into Lxqt and ICE WM. I love the speed of Linux Mint with Lxqt DE and Ice WM. For the most part, I am in LxQT DE for my Mint sessions. Unless I am changing my background wallpaper settings, that's the only thing I jump into Cinnamon for.
Where are you running these virtual machines and how does, one do thst.
lubuntu 18 was a beast! I tried LXLE distro to have that back but I was dissapointed. lxde with xfce wm and tools was great. but now I am mastering the art of window manager only so I dont need DEs or distros anymore.
08:59 Which Linux is this that only consumes 153mb of ram?
lubuntu 18.04, with LXDE, that's what he says anyway, I didn't check it
Starting from cli on Ubuntu server, how can i install lxqt without any useless other software?? Only DE
I used ubuntu for about 6 months, peppermint for 2 or 3 years and now lubuntu
lubuntu seems fastest though perhaps its because my old HDD was old and full?
What is your Pc specs @TechHut please reply and can i run fall with Amdryzen5 3600 with 16gb3200mhz ram and gt 1030 smoothly in linux
Oh yeah you'll be more than fine. I'd recommend a better GPU if you want to do any gaming, but this system is great.
I'm running a Ryzen 3700x, 32gb 3600mhz, GTX 1650.
@@TechHut Thanks tech hut i didnt know you had so many subs but still replying to me thanks
@TechHut how many fps i will get ?? please reply fast
www.userbenchmark.com/PCGame/FPS-Estimates-Minecraft/3776/283726.0.0.0.0
I'm new ish to linux but why such a concentration on what it LOOKS like?
2:57 you would expect this from CINNAMON and KDE, not XFCE. Why is it so resource heavy? At that point isnt it just better to use those 2 instead?
xfce on a base install uses around 350 megs on void, those preconfigured distros bloat it quite a lot. cinnamon base is around 750 and i'm not sure about plasma, but it should be between 400 and 500
@@francescovolpini I heard Base Cinnamon is around 500 megs. In Debian base XFCE is around 330 megs abd even if you add bunch of stuff it wont go over 360 (better menu, plank, teansparency, better icons and themes). How can people recommend something as low spec if it uses 500 megs.....
@@abhabh6896 i don't know how it can be that bloated. some distros ship with window managers, arcolinux with dwm and systemd uses those very same 500 megs, while it should be using less than 150.. :(
and i believe cinnamon is in the mid 700s as far as ram conspumtion
@@francescovolpini Opensuse with iceWB used around 50MB. Some of these DE WM setups are really ridiculously unfair. pepermint, the "King of low end hardware: uses 400 megs in cold boot, more if you opened and closed programs....wow.... Debian XFCE stomps every single one of those "low end hardware" distros when it comes to ram......and if you use LXQT....well, there is no competition.
@@abhabh6896 icewm using 50 megs with systemd and opensuse(elogin, lightdm..), it's impossible
I had to switch away from any downstream distribution of Debian in Ubuntu flavors and install Debian with XFCE. The improvement is very noticeable. I am sure the same is true of LXQT, I just haven't tried it yet. Biggest disappointment in these DEs on Debian is the lack of app-store and package managers. These can be compensated for with a distribution like Lubuntu of Xubuntu, but I feel you get a lot more fluff along with the package managers and app store which cause all the resource drain.
Thanks! It helped me decide. Now I know I want XFCE but can only run LXQT :(
Right now LXQT is better
Some apps offer qt or gtk versions. Which to choose, and why?
Xfce always has Gunnar. Others offer Pcman in either of 2 or 3 versions. Which and why choose these?
A "desktop environment" is a combination of a window manager, desktop, and an integrated collection of commonly-used applications, such as file managers and terminal emulators. Every program explicitly offered through the environment is designed to work together, with the same look, feel, and operational concepts.
For programs outside of the DE core list, whenever possible try to stick to the same base type as your DE. A gtk-based app will run more efficiently and integrate more cleanly on a gtk-based desktop than a qt one, and vice versa. It should automatically adopt the same theme, dialog, and widget styles.
Other than that, it's entirely up to you. You can run non-native applications if you wish. Just be aware that every program needs to have at least a portion of its environment's background libraries and services installed as well, which can often mean a large and heavy installation for even one small program. You may also have to do some leg work if you want them to look and function (roughly) the same as the rest of your desktop (e.g. finding a suitable cross-platform theme).
I personally just use whatever program provides the features and workflow that I like most, regardless of the environment it was made for. I go for function over style, as long my system can handle it.
I've been a Lubuntu user for several years on my older 32 bit computers. I like the classic look and feel. Xubuntu reminds me of windows 2000. 😆
I was investigating LXQT for a more modern look n less ram usage but ive decided to stay with XFCE... primarily because xfce has a better start menu n the themes in lxqt are not impacting the applications at all. So dark mode is not great by default in lxqt... im sure there must be a way but its a bit inconvinient... xfce on the other hand comes with all the GTK+ apps n a tight integration for skins n themes.
puppy has entered the chat
puppy linux is poopy linux.
@@Olie956 could you, please, elaborate?
I want to try one of these, currently using MATE
Home edition of Parrot is killer...without the plethora of paranoia
I used for a long time calculate linux. When they begun, I think so, to make an lxqt relaese, I've tryed it. And I can't say that lxqt is so much friendlier to the RAM. In my case I had bad experience with 4GB RAM & a lot of firefox windows & tabs. Most with different youtube videos)) So I still use xfce4. But the really good investion for this, was to buy a 8GB RAM. Now have 11,something GB RAM, almost is fine.
Yes. But it;s mostly becuz of the browser which are a RAM and cpu hog.
@@theinceptor3672 Yeah. I understand it. But when I started xfce4 DE witjout opening a programm, and started then lxqt DE, the difference of the RAM was something about 2%. It was before upgrade the RAM. But the new xfce4 v4.16... I think I still use it. But the new version of xfce is not so great like the previos, exspecially for me. I like more the older one
@@nterix Cn be. I herdd oper & mozill too re not o open ource. I ue now t mot librewolf & icect. nd I'm gooed with them, till now))
On my device, xfce took up less ram than lxqt.
Fresh boot up with no apps using devuan (debian without systemd)
xfce - 900mb
Lxqt - 1.1Gb
Am happily using Lubuntu 21.04 and after boot it's sitting idle at 240mb memory usage :)
I am using it for same reason, and it has improved big time
I've been using Cinnamon and loving it. Is it the heaviest?
Depends on the distro, usally gnome and cinnamon are the heaviest, kde and most other DEs are average, and finally lxqt and xfce are the lowest.
Edit: oh btw weight isn't a huuugggee deal on higher-end stuff
Can u remake videos using vanilla debian since it is available for low end pc and it is uncustomised so it will show the real performance
I'll be doing a Arch vs Debian video soon.
Best LXQt was Redcore Linux but now is Calculate Linux or even try Artix LXQt which is what based on Qt and latest Gtk based XFCE is a little bit heavier than LXQt.
I just installed the Lxqt edition of Manjaro on my laptop. It's very nice.
@@gepwxaqdfsidsesg1548 Sparky Linux with LXQt is badass as well. Give it a try one day, You won't regret.
here i am using xfce on my gaming computer simply because it does what i need and doesn't have too much stupid crap (looking directly at you windows).
how do you open your games on linux ?
@@17moh.oktaviazizn.75 obviously with Steam
@@brickbrick1 It’s not obvious. Can use wine or lutris
Can I run Xubuntu in my 2GB Ram PC ?
Which one should I go for... Lxqt or Xfce ? I'm new to Linux so it should be easy to use.
And also does adding good themes affect the performance ?
Yes and no
@@kisansab9129 so what should I do after that Yes and No answer...
I didn't got that because I am still trying to learning linux.
Adding themes affected my performance a lot. I want performance and I will rather have an ugly theme as a sacrifice. If you also want performance you should install lxqt first. I don't have any scientific reason but I have seen enough of lxqt feeling snappier.
@@shupan8720 ok... Thanks for the advice.
I have a 12 years old laptop and had try different distros and DE s to see which is the most light for it. In my case, I find LXQT a bit lighter than XFCE.
I wanted to use lxde but it disappointed me finding out that it is being left apart for developing lxqt
Try LXLE
lxqt is nice, i use with i3wm to WM on lxqt.
How to doing that??
@@honor9lite1337 sudo apt-get install i3
logout and select the i3 session
@@luizz7573 but is it loading the lxqt session too?
@@honor9lite1337 no, losts the lxqt apperance
@@honor9lite1337 ive seen a tutorial, u can use lxqt with i3 only as its window manager
Regarding toolkits:
There are some primary differences between the QT3.x and 4.x series.
Specially in light of forking, and historic Linux Desktop Markers. But yeah, I don't mind ignoring Gnome and GTK3.
Could U compare Moksha DE?
When I used to stockpile old computers, on one of them I had LXDE. Otherwise, I use XFCE, even on new hardware.
How about a puppy Vs antix, both live and installed versions
pupu shits in the floor
Blind man. LXQt looks waaaaay better in compare to XFCE. The second one looks older on decades.
Out of the box, but xfce is much more customizable and can be made to look amazing very easily.
I use Peppermint and love it. Based on Lubuntu - FASTER than Lubuntu.
I have seen its idle isnt really great with around 400 megs.
Are they making it light in some other way?
I compared by myself playing a video in parole in both XFCE and LXQT, for the same video. Parole in XFCE has less than 30% average CPU consumption, meanwhile Parole in LXQT has 60% average CPU consumption. So I love XFCE the most
Лол, этож Гена Букин)))
2:00 *QT, not GTK.
if you think XFCE looks better than LXQt, by default, you have an eye vision problem
Yes. I have to agree with this.
Defaul theme wise yes, but XFCE has a more consistent look and feel, thats why i prefer it over LXQt,
also after personalization it can looks as nice as any DE and with the plus of beeing more consistent than LXQt.
😂🤣😅
I like how lxqt is so lightweight I use gnome as my primary de but switch to lxqt when I emulate ps3
Which one of these two is the lightest?
@@doe2218 lxqt is the lightest but it looks so lame on the other side gnome which is kinda heavy but looks amazing and got a lot of futures but if you want a good looking lightweight de then go with xfce
Thanks
I like some of the look of XFCE and it's LIGHTNESS--- but they say it's "highly customizable"- and I tried and I can't figure out how.. I'm a kde man- an I KNOW how it's customizable- but this doesn't look like it at all.. I might SWITCH to it -- if I knew how!!!
Guess I'll stick with my highly tricked-out (Debian) XFCE, but now I am wondering more about OpenBox. My biggest fear is having things break when I update and upgrade.
My Ryzen 9 5900x, 32gb ram 4000mhz, rtx 3079, 1tb nvme boot drive. Runs XFCE 😂
Love it !!!!!
OP 😂
LXQt as Qt based DEs are the future.
Any reason to say this?
@@federico.v.mastellone Look at the most of the GUI based technolgies what are the hyped for.
How to install lxqt
At 2:23, I can't get over how you pronounce Xubuntu and Lubuntu. Gosh, it's not X-Ubuntu or L-Ubuntu. It's pronounced as one word, the x making the z sound, like "zubuntu," and it should be obvious how to pronounce Lubuntu, like "loobuntu" or something.
BUT! Thanks for this comparison. Both are great for low-powered computers. I prefer Xfce on Xubuntu. The stock install of Xfce is pretty bad, but Xubuntu adds a few things to it. It's super customizable, though and with themes, you can make it look really modern. It's also a whole lot easier to configure than KDE's Plasma. Plasma's options are super great, but Xfce is just easy in that you just right-click on whatever you want to change, click "Preferences" and you're there.
That said, looking at the version of Lubuntu you showcased, it doesn't look bad at all. Yes, its default menu leaves a lot to be desired, but it gets the job done. If only LXQt saved as much memory as its predecessor LXDE does. Also, Qt is intended to be pronounced like "cute" though many people resent that pronunciation, just like most people don't know how to properly pronounce GNOME and MATE. Thanks for the video!
How to properly pronounce Gnome and Mate?
@@fxvlad Oh, those are a bit harder to explain in text. GNOME is intended to be pronounced "guh-nome." Looking it up, I found this is called a "hard G" pronunciation, same as the word "glove." This is because it's part of the GNU Project, also pronounced with a hard G like "guh new." But, many people argue it's pronounced "nome" with a silent G, like a garden gnome. I say either is right, since people typically pick one or the other, and argue over which is right.
As for MATE, it is a Spanish word, as it was created by a Spanish team. According to their website, it's pronounced like "ma-tay." You'll find many of the apps in the MATE suite are Spanish words as well. Hope this helps!
@@CalebHawn how do you know all that stuff about naming like "zubuntu" etc? Ive always pronounced X-ubuntu and sometimes gee-nohm))
@@fxvlad I listen to a lot of Linux podcasts, such as Linux Unplugged and Destination Linux. They talk a lot about this stuff, so I hear the names a lot. It's a great way to interact with the community. Also, I Google a lot of what I don't know.
Both work great with i3wm btw
Pcmanf-QT cannot remember the sort order of each folder. This is a big minus. LXQT is also ugly :)
Me running lxqt on 16gb of ram
Mainly interesting for Xubuntu vs Lubuntu, but that's not Xfce vs LXQt
i love LXDE
lxde/lxqt by default do not include a compositor, not even a powermanager and stuff while xfce will be lighter once you remove the blings, and is a much more desktop-oriented packages. there is really no sense comparing apples to oranges when they are not run with the same configuration, not to mention comparing ram usage while on linux. Linux is now windows.
Dude you’re confused. I can strip all DE to be as light as possible, that not the stock config. It’s 2 lightweight DE going head to head, so it is fair.
So in theory I could use compton/picom as a compositor with the same config file I use on a window manaer and it will still work ?
lxqt = mini kde, xfce = mini mate.
xfce and mate are really same in resources consumption.
Oh, come on now. No TDE? This old KDE fork will smash them all.
Lxqt is butt ugly. XFCE is light, but beautiful. For me lxqt was even using more RAM than XFCE, it's almost as if it requires extra resources to be that ugly.
Ubuntu = "ooh" "boon" "too"
Gnome = "guh" "nome"
probably better to update resutls those ARE ANCIENT 2016? 0% aplicable today
The benchmarking remains fairly accurate independently. I also showed what my ram results were with the Ubuntu variants. XFCE runs around 500, LXQt is around 400, and LXDE is right under 200. With this much of a difference benchmarking between these environments is irrelevant to a vast majority of people, but still worth mention.
i want only LXDE
cultured
347mb ram usage, xp runs with 64mb
update: I installed XP on a new machine 3,23gb ram (32-bit) had 180mb ram used and mpc-hc took 200mb, the ram usage was 280mb with a video playing
@@Zero11s Windows in general will use more ram the more ram you have to keep common files and applications ready to open.
@@gurbuz12345 XP is both 32 and 64bit if you're gonna make an argument at least know wtf you are talking about please. Its def outdated though you are correct on that.
@@gurbuz12345 Seems like you have a 10 IQ and really need to research before you spout off to an IT PRO. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition
use windows xp then
do a review on EMMABUNUTUS
xfce better, because it is more customizable.
I prefer Lxqt, It's good looking without needing to customize it
I guess that depends what you're used to customizing. In my experience, Lxqt can be extremely customizable. Just need to know how to do it, as with everything.
996 Conn Forest
Wilkinson Mission
GTK >> Qt
Heathcote Crescent
9862 Dayna Plain
9903 Schoen Road
512 MB RAM = KDE Plasma!
In my experiences KDE felt very sluggish. Not so much in general performance but the whole thing of it felt bloated? Like, from every animation and such I felt I had a slower experience on it then I did while running xfce4.
@Splitinfinity same for me
Bullshit. KDE consumes 1 GB of ram in idle.
@@e14ee The problem is not the RAM, is the CPU usage in old machines.
thats a lie, KDE uses 3GB here after cold boot also uses more CPU and GPU (5% on idle)
while XFCE uses about 400MB after cold boot and uses 1% of CPU and 0% of GPU.
Macejkovic Square
on rasp4 lubuntu dont work at all and xubuntu freezes randomly, something is badly wrong with ubuntu these days
Lxde+ Compiz Fusion.
Dickens Curve
Mante Ridge
ive been pronouncing it zooboontoo
antiX is good enough for me! I LOVE IT!!!!!
Amya Haven
Jones Isle
Pollich Hills
Mohr Shore
Dicki Mount
Martinez Kimberly Jackson Jason Brown Michael