Gnome vs KDE : For beginners, without the flame war!

I've googled it endlessly, and find three equally useless answers.

1) a lengthy article laying out the pros and cons (supposedly) of each, which mostly makes them sound about the same and doesn't really point out any advantages of one over the other

2) a forum thread with people saying "I use xyz" usually for reasons that don't make a whole lot of sense to me as a n00bie, or are the same reason as someone gave for using the alternative

3) a flame war with people deriding the developers of the opposition and anyone who defends them.

oh and 4) an article saying they're both good, you choose.

NONE of this is any help to a newbie! I'm back to trying distros because Mint/Ubuntu was cooking my CPU (yes I've tried every fix I could find) and couldn't get the Alsa sound issues fixed with Fedora, and Suse wireless support sucks ... so. Back to distro hopping. And every time I see that 'gnome/kde' screen I spend 5 minutes agonizing over it.

KDE on Fedora was mostly ok though I found I had to do a lot more clicking to get stuff I wanted. I don't know if this was because I'm not familiar, or it's a feature of KDE. I like to have quick access to the terminal. Don't like Konqueror (aparrently the semicolon is a shortcut) and Firefox kept crashing - I've read that Firefox is more stable in Gnome than in KDE.

so far Gnome is coming out a winner for me at this point. I'd like to hear any other suggestions that will help a newbie choose one or the other - make an informed choice rather "well they both are as good, I'll choose the familiar one".

thanks!

I am both gnone and Kde4 user.Kde4.1.4 is totally useless at the moment.HOWEVEr 4.2 is getting better and better.If you want to test KDE4 you should test it on 4.2(There is no cons of kde 4.1.x except eye candy.).Also ubuntu is not a good distro to test KDE4.you should go for fedora or suse

I think people coming from Windows would feel more comfortable with KDE 4.2, I however, use GNOME I like simplicity and ability to customise. I had bad experiences with the networking in the KDE that came with Kubuntu 7.10. I just haven't given KDE 4.x a fair chance yet, I'm already used to, and stuck on GNOME.

I came from windows, and I find the GNOME enviroment to be quite nice. I was able to make it do what I wanted through the GUI without having to google every step...like most other things Ive done after the switch :P

From what I've seen, KDE and GNOME look about the same in their own respects, but GNOME seems to be easier to use...all of that coming from someone with about 3 weeks linux expirence :D

i prefer gnome, i find it more intuitive then KDE.

It also doesn't slow my computer down as much as KDE does.

just my two cents:D

I found that KDE menus were harder to navigate... not as nicely organized as Gnome. I couldn't find everything I was looking for, or it took longer.

asking this question on the ubuntu forum will get you the gnome answer :D I think too that gnome is more simple but kde is more nicer for the eye.

I'd say if you hated the 500000 Buttons and Menus in Windows then use Gnome. If you'd like to have your screen like a starship cockpit then use KDE.

The creator of Linux just said in an interview(osnews.com) that he switched to gnome because KDE 4.0 (and up) was not working well for him. That is amazing since he always blasted gnome in the past saying they thought gnome users were dumb that is why they made it so simple. I like gnome. When I tried to use KDE 4.1 I could never find anything and I was not even able to change my desktop background(opensuse 11).

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Software&articleId=9126619&taxonomyId=18&pageNumber=1

I think that KDE (Kubuntu) will seem more familiar to some one moving from Windows, if I were moving from Vista/Xp to Ubuntu I would start there. You can always download and install Ubuntu or Xubuntu later.

When I first started with Ubuntu two years ago, I didn't even realize that there were several Window Managers. I used Gnome right away and gradually got used to it. I found it to be simple and consistent overall.

Later I gave several tries to KDE in Ubuntu, PC-BSD and OpenSUSE, but I couldn't stick to that. There were too many options and buttons everywhere. The new KDE desktop seems very oriented on using desklets and quite frankly I'm not a fan of that at all.

I prefer a lean GUI. This is just MY opinion.

I started with GNOME, switched to KDE, and am now back on GNOME.

KDE:

• Much prettier.
• Comes with a Twitter gadget/widget/whatever-it's-called. It's very nice to have twitter on the desktop, but the widget itself is terribly designed.
• Did I mention, KDE is pretty?
• More resources needed
• More difficult than GNOME to theme.

GNOME:

• Lightweight
• Simpler
• Contrary to popular opinion, I found GNOME to be more windows-like than KDE. If you move the top bar down to the bottom, you essentially have a "start" button with "Applications."
• Much easier to theme.
• Boring-er graphics, though those can be changed.

Thus, I say new users should start with GNOME, and then when they get used to Linux, they can switch to KDE if they so choose.

Gnome is like XP, and KDE like Vista. I like KDE better, for its looks, I like Dolphin, its a bit more handy windows explorer than nautilus, but KDE definitely is not practical at all! It uses almost all resources, and I can not browse files more than an hour before I get a fatal crash message. Kwins effects just plain suck, and compiz is not well integrated in KDE. Menu looks and feels awful and slow, theming of KDE is equal to 0...Like I said, if you want to actually work on your comp, and be productive - go gnome, if you like to look at your desktop, and admire its beauty - go KDE, KDE 3.x is a good alternative for KDE4, because it actually works, but this one is ugly, also there is a good alternative in Linux Arch, called the KDEmod (moded KDE especially for Arch, set up for speed - but Arch is Linux distro made to be a CLI distro). I have tried almost all mainstream distros, and I can say that Ubuntu with its default gnome will be distro No1 Linux distro in every sence. And if you think that gnome is ugly, just check out this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1047409 , ok it doesn't have plasmids, but gnome can also have widgets like KDE (don't know why people always say that KDEs pro \are widgets?)

I used to use Gnome, but switched to KDE. I like KDE applications better, and they run much better in KDE than in Gnome, so that was part of why I switched. I use KDE 3.5.10 and have never tried KDE 4.x. And I dont think Ill use it for quite some time. But it is getting along nicely.

KDE, pros: -has better applications -uses less memory (yes, really) -is more flexible

KDE, cons: -the menu -bad if you don`t like blue or the letter k

Gnome, pros: -looks better -has more applications -simple and straightforward

Gnome, cons: -uses more memory -inflexible, less options

Hallvor said:

KDE, cons: -bad if you don`t like blue or the letter k

Haha, I'd forgotten about that! Almost my main gripe. There are 'K's everywhere!

I freakin hate the Ks

To me, here's what it comes down to:

GNOME pro:

• VERY unobtrusive. Nothing's particularly busy and simply laid out.
• The majority of applications are written with the GTK toolkit, if you like visual unity.
• Customizable, but not to any crazy extent.

GNOME con:

• It's different from Windows. Can't get away from that.
• Can't customize it that much.
• The simplicity of it can be disarming.

KDE pro:

• Looks similar to Windows both in color scheme and the panel/menu layout.
• You can customize it a lot.
• Konqueror's spiffy.

KDE con:

• Buggy as of 4, but 4.2 may be better.
• Everything's part of the K-Suite which can get annoying when everything in the menu is Ksomething.
• The "kitchen sink" approach means most applications are insanely busy visually. Can be off-putting.

Beginnerwinner: GNOME

Reason being it IS a simple system. There's a bit of a learning curve, but things are logically laid out, require little searching, and a new user won't be overloaded. Dolphin suffers the same problem as Konqueror in that there are, what, three or four frames by default?

Remember, when we're talking a beginner, what we're not talking is what it CAN look like, but what it does by default. For a new user, GNOME's relative simplicity will make the transition easier.

I want to give my opinion, since I have tried both.

Ubuntu, which is powered by Gnome is the best - simply because it is fast, stable, easy, and very efficient.

Kubuntu, which is powered by KDE4, is awful - again simply because it is trying to be a better Windows, by bundling everything we can get on Vista on KDE. Plus a fancy interface, well this causes slow, unresponsive systems, with frequent crashes.

KDE have tried to be even better than Windows - but they have tried at the wrong end.

Gnome is better than Windows and KDE because it simply works.

For the record, Mac OS X tries to do everything - and starts to appear very baby-like and boring.

I think KDE needs to scrap these domination ideas, and move back to simple, stable, and efficient computing.

If it was between KDE3 and Gnome - then that would be interesting!

Nick

I much prefer Gnome to KDE (both 3.5 and 4.x) due to it's sleek default look and simplicity. I used to use KDE for about a month or 2, but I got annoyed at how bloated everything was. I was never able to get used to KDE. Too much trouble to go through all the menus and such looking for what you want.

Gnome is best for the beginner I think. It is different than Windows (Just get used to change!), simple to customize, and has a simple layout.

I came from windows when I started using Ubuntu, of course, and started with gnome because that's the usual setup. Shortly thereafter I tried kubuntu, and was less than thrilled. My reason being that in gnome, you can see what you're doing. Applications, Places, System; click them, you see what's what. In kde, I would click something, look, wonder, explore, then close it and boot back to gnome. In my opinion, it's needlessly complicated, and over rated. I came to linux for freedom and simplicity. I get freedom with both, but the simplicity with gnome makes it my preferred choice. Hope that is as simple and straight forward and answer as you would like to see.

BLTicklemonster said: I came from windows when I started using Ubuntu [...] Shortly thereafter I tried kubuntu, and was less than thrilled.

You are not alone. Do they make Kubuntu as an insult to KDE? If want to see KDE done right, try Debian or Sidux instead.

For newbie a short answer: it really does not matter. Both are equally good.

I don't know what you want or expect, so I can't accurately tell you which one to use. Only you can decide.

cosmingc said: asking this question on the ubuntu forum will get you the gnome answer :d

i think too that gnome is more simple but kde is more nicer for the eye.

+1

Well so many will bring up the good points and bad points of both, its kind of hard not to as they are quite different though do the same basic functions. For me the easiest way to compare KDE to Gnome is like this:

Gnome is for those who want to keep things simple, its simple enough for anyone to understand and use and eventually customize.

KDE 4.1 is for those who want simplicity but want some bling to go along with it, its easy for the beginner but complex enough for the hardcore linuxer and because its on the cutting edge one can experiment with it for either fun or bug killing :D

KDE 3.5 is for those who like the bling but want the stability, the KDE3 series has reached a level where both the new user and the hardcore user can get to what they need without worrying about crashes.

and for fun lets put xfce in the mix XFCE is for those who want simplicity and and lightweight interface that isnt hard to figure out, it is great for beginners and hardcore users alike because of its mix of simplicity and stability.

Here is a bit of trivial...i tallied the pros and cons, trying to be fair, each post got a max of 4 votes (one in each category); here are the results as of post #25....

Gnome pros: 15 cons: 3 KDE pros: 9 cons: 12

SomeGuyDude said:

KDE con:

• Buggy as of 4, but 4.2 may be better.
• Everything's part of the K-Suite which can get annoying when everything in the menu is Ksomething.
• The "kitchen sink" approach means most applications are insanely busy visually. Can be off-putting.

This is why I prefer to install an OS without a gui and then install only kdebase4 so I don't get all that extra k bloat software which I never use anyways. And 4.2 is definitely shaping up to be what , in my opinion, KDE 4.0 should have been.

KDE 4.2 seems to be a big improvement tried it out last week but i still think gnome is easier to work with and doesn't slow down this old computer.

Use KDE, cuz it's goood

I will try KDE again when version 5 comes out in a long time from now.

coffey7 said: I will try KDE again when version 5 comes out in a long time from now.

Well I would still keep an eye on KDE 4.2, 4.3 and 4, who knows what will happen.

KDE 4.2 all the way for me. To me, GNOME looks ancient and old school, while KDE is more modern.

Look at it this way, if you prefer Windows 7's UI, you'll like KDE better. If you're old fashion and like Windows XP's UI, you'll like GNOME better.

not again one of those threads...:confused:

xarte said: I'd like to hear any other suggestions that will help a newbie choose one or the other - make an informed choice rather "well they both are as good, I'll choose the familiar one".

Sorry, but anything else than that is a lie or a flame war. Don't choose the desktop environment because of the look, because both can look the same, even if the defaults are different. Just choose what you think is more intuitive and stable. (For me that's Gnome, but everybody has different opinions)

danielrmt said: Sorry, but anything else than that is a lie or a flame war. Don't choose the desktop environment because of the look, because both can look the same, even if the defaults are different. Just choose what you think is more intuitive and stable. (For me that's Gnome, but everybody has different opinions)

+1 Customizing is half the fun. My gnome desktop is tricked out to my own liking. KDE 4.2 is pretty to look at, , but I couldn't get the compiz cube effect working after a half-hearted try.

You could be like me and have them both installed( type sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop in a terminal, installs KDE over a Gnome build), then switching between the two is a logout (not a reboot) away.

i messed with kde today just to see what all the hypes all about i didnt really like how bloated it was after 4 hours of messing around with it i said kubuntu wasnt for me so i switched back to ubuntu

HuaiDan said: +1

Customizing is half the fun. My gnome desktop is tricked out to my own liking. KDE 4.2 is pretty to look at, , but I couldn't get the compiz cube effect working after a half-hearted try.

You could be like me and have them both installed( type sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop in a terminal, installs KDE over a Gnome build), then switching between the two is a logout (not a reboot) away.

A better command is

sudo aptitude install kubuntu-desktop

This ensures that you can easily remove it with aptitude remove, uninstalling can be a real pain if you installed it with apt-get.

If you want plain vanilla KDE:

sudo aptitude install kde

If you want KDE, without the bloat (barebones, you may have to install some more things on your own to get a functional desktop, doesn't even have Dolphin and Konqueror)

sudo aptitude install kde-core

Before this week I was a devout GNOME follower. I really wanted to like KDE4 but I just couldn't no matter how impressed I was by their progress. Lately though, I dove in and gave it a really good go and now I have wiped GNOME completely. Loving it.

This should be in recurring discussions we have this argument once and week and it brings out all the gnome fan bois. You can't get a straight answer to this on a Ubuntu gnome forum.

Please move this to recurring and add it to another wasted thread there.

jrusso2 said: This should be in recurring discussions we have this argument once and week and it brings out all the gnome fan bois. You can't get a straight answer to this on a Ubuntu gnome forum.

Please move this to recurring and add it to another wasted thread there.

This is already in the recurring discussions. You can't get a straight answer to this wherever you are.

You can't get a straight answer because there isn't one, it all boils down to personal taste. I use KDE4.2 because I like it more but I can't honestly say why. They both do everything I need.

Mick

Xfce?

/(FTW!) //Yeeeah baby!

I also have Kubuntu installed on a separate partition. If I were to use it, I'd use that one because KDE bugs out over my compiz settings and I don't want to play with that yet. Or maybe it bugs out because I installed it wrong. Would there be any harm in letting it just sit there unused, other than taking up disk space, even if an uninstall wouldn't clean up all the dependencies? It doesn't appear to have affected my gnome environment at all.

Sand & Mercury said: A better command is

sudo aptitude install kubuntu-desktop

This ensures that you can easily remove it with aptitude remove, uninstalling can be a real pain if you installed it with apt-get.

If you want plain vanilla KDE:

sudo aptitude install kde

If you want KDE, without the bloat (barebones, you may have to install some more things on your own to get a functional desktop, doesn't even have Dolphin and Konqueror)

sudo aptitude install kde-core

Before this week I was a devout GNOME follower. I really wanted to like KDE4 but I just couldn't no matter how impressed I was by their progress. Lately though, I dove in and gave it a really good go and now I have wiped GNOME completely. Loving it.

Hi,

I have recently switched over to ubuntu from XP, and till now it is smooth sailing. We have SuSe at our office computers, so I am more used to using KDE. But if I have to make some comparisions now...I would say gnome, only reason, i am finding it more simpler to work around than in KDE.

Cheers!!

I was using Gnome because KDE 4.0 was useless, (Before, I hated KDe3.5 it's the ugliest desktop hehe)I like very much gnome but now, KDE4.2 give me all I need, it's beautiful, useful, It's something novel to me, it's the reason why now, I switch gnome by KDE.

pol666 said: (Before, I hated KDe3.5 it's the ugliest desktop hehe)Nobody listens to me? This is the third time I post that you can't choose a desktop environment because of how it looks, because you can customize them! See I'm not biased here, because I'm a Gnome fan.

my first linux distros was mandriva powerpack then open suse. it had kde both of them. it took me very long time to learn how to use kde on mandriva. and on top of being totally with out any other operative system than mandriva it was a bit "not so easy" for me as beginner.

when i found debian sarge i found something easy to deal with and it looks so much more intuitve to me. not that fluxbox open box or jwm does not do that now ,and when i have tweaked a kde desktop to my liking its actually great but i stil cant find my way around it that easy to begin with .

i would say it is my opinion that gnome is the most easy desktop enviroment for a beginner.

danielrmt said: Nobody listens to me? This is the third time I post that you can't choose a desktop environment because of how it looks, because you can customize them! See I'm not biased here, because I'm a Gnome fan.

no, KDE3, it's ugly although it's customized. For various reason, First, there're not a lot of themes, icons and apps to customize (gnome have got much more) And second, because, the desing of the KDE3 programas, are ugly. and finally KDE doesn't integrate with Screenlets or Compiz. BUT KDE4 it's different because, it have got Plasma, KWIN, Oxygen style. It's Simply and cute.

pol666 said: no, KDE3, it's ugly although it's customized. For various reason, First, there're not a lot of themes, icons and apps to customize (gnome have got much more)Maybe by default, but what about http://www.kde-look.org/ ? And second, because, the desing of the KDE3 programas, are ugly.I believe most (not all) KDE4 applikations are the same as KDE3, but newer version... Not sure, as I never used KDE4.

and finally KDE doesn't integrate with Screenlets or Compiz. BUT KDE4 it's different because, it have got Plasma, KWIN, Oxygen style. It's Simply and cute.You can have widgets like Screenlets in KDE3 with Karamba, and I do believe it works with Compiz.

God, what I'm doing? Can't believe.

I was a long-time kde user until kde4 became default in kubuntu. My reason was simple; I really like the kde applications, particularly kile, and they run better in kde. That said, I have made what I feel is a temporary switch to gnome. kde4 simply needs more time to develop. It looks like it has a great deal of potential, but I think making it the default for kubuntu was a mistake. It needs refinement and better stability.

4.2 is quite stable. Much more than 4.1

mikeize said: I found that KDE menus were harder to navigate... not as nicely organized as Gnome. I couldn't find everything I was looking for, or it took longer.

Pull the K menu plasmoid out of the task bar and replace it with the Lancelot plasmoid (comes with Kubuntu, look in the Add Widgets dialog). Same idea, superior execution. Icon can be switched to one of the standard KDE or Oxygen logos or replaced with anything you want; I currently use the Kubuntu logo but you could use whatever makes you happiest.

At the time when I switched to Linux, I was using Win XP. The desktop environment I use is Gnome. I like it because it is intuitive and the options are laid out for you. Not having a start button is easy to get around because it looks so different from windows. KDE OTOH looks, to me, like Windows twin brother, so it comes as more of a shock when the blue button on the bottom left (with the gear) doesn't behave exactly the same as the Start button in Windows, thus it is more frustrating to use than Gnome.

If you have a tablet Laptop, you might want to consider looking at BasKetNotes, which is a KDE app that is, iirc, similar in style and function to MS OneNote (which to me is Window's killer app).

I SOOO hate that the K (in BasKetNotes and every other KDE application out there) is capitalized, in fact the other BIG reason I use Gnome is that, while I don't mind a cutesy name, it should be spelled properly or completely originally...The K thing is so annoying that I'd rather use proprietary software than support it.

gnome pwnz

xarte said: I've googled it endlessly, and find three equally useless answers.

1) a lengthy article laying out the pros and cons (supposedly) of each, which mostly makes them sound about the same and doesn't really point out any advantages of one over the other

2) a forum thread with people saying "I use xyz" usually for reasons that don't make a whole lot of sense to me as a n00bie, or are the same reason as someone gave for using the alternative

3) a flame war with people deriding the developers of the opposition and anyone who defends them.

oh and 4) an article saying they're both good, you choose.

NONE of this is any help to a newbie! That's because there is no definitive answer!

The question of Gnome vs KDE is like Apple vs Orange. They're both fruits, which one do you like more -- the one that is red, hard, and is rich in Vitamin A, or the one that is orange, soft, and rich is Vitamin C? :confused:

I use both, and like each equally as much as the other. Much depends on the specific version of Gnome and KDE, and the distro you are using them on. Ubuntu and Fedora implement Gnome extremely well, while OpenSUSE and Mandriva does likewise for KDE.

KDE 4 is new and still undergoing huge pace of development and stabilisation. Some KDE 3 applications are still being ported to KDE 4. It is only going to get better... fast. The improvements in features and stability between KDE 4.0 and 4.2 are enormous.

Gnome 2 is mature, very stable, and stagnant. There is little new development for Gnome 2. Roadmap for Gnome 3 is not much better, with most of the work happening in the infrastructure with very little new features for the end-user.

KDE traditionally encourages customisation and application integration. KDE 4 doesn't emphasis this as much as KDE 3 did, but improvements have been made and are still being made at very rapid pace.

Gnome traditionally encourages simplicity over customisation. Sometimes this philosophy of austerity is frustrating and Gnome forbids even some very simple customisations. Some people criticise KDE for making it too difficult to find the GUI option for a setting, but in my opinion, KDE's GUI options are much better than having to hunt for Gnome's labyrinthine GConf settings!

Both KDE 4 and Gnome 2 are reliable. I have not suffered any system or application crashes under KDE 4.2 or Gnome 2.26. However, I have had some minor display glitches using compositing under Gnome, which does not occur under KDE.

KDE is slightly more resource-heavy than Gnome. For me, a fresh desktop requires around 400 MB of RAM under KDE, and around 380 MB of RAM under Gnome. With Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and VirtualBox running, KDE and Gnome both take up around 600 MB (minus the RAM taken up by VirtualBox's guest operating system). It seems that while Gnome is easier on the resources while running on its own, KDE manages memory usage better under heavy use.

While Gnome starts up slightly faster to the desktop, it takes longer for Gnome's panel applets and system tray applications to start. KDE takes slightly longer to display the desktop, but applets and system tray applications come to life quicker.

And so on...

Ultimately, no-one can really give you a definitive answer. You have try both and find out which is better. If you are using Ubuntu, try Gnome first. Once you are comfortable with Gnome, switch to KDE and use it for about a week. DO NOT TRY A DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT JUST FOR A FEW DAYS!!! You need at least a week to a month to really familiarise yourself with a desktop environment.

My only contribution to this discussion is the observation that on older hardware, the least resource-hungry DE is probably better. The lightweight ones are XFCE and LXDE. I'm using LXDE on a very minimal Ubuntu installation and it is simple, lightweight, and fast.

On a super-duper-razoo computer with lotsa RAM and 80-zillion terabyte-per-second quad-core processor, I'd use KDE for the eye candy.

[QUOTE=dixiedancer;

On a super-duper-razoo computer with lotsa RAM and 80-zillion terabyte-per-second quad-core processor, I'd use KDE for the eye candy.

+1

There is 2 camps . Those who have the hardware to use the new effects and those that don't.

I wouldnt even think about installing Kubuntu4.2 on my eee900 BUT it runs Ubuntu 9.04 on ext4 really well.

Can anyone imagine the KDE people using 5 years old technology to develop the latest desktops?

Hardware people blame the software people. How long has that been going on lol

sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop kubuntu-desktop

Try them both.

That's the only way you'll ever know which one you like.

Its like asking someone to explain to you whether you'll like hotdogs or hamburgers better before trying them. It can't be done.

For the original question, I think Gnome is better.

It's simpler, and is more intuitive.

Warpnow said:

sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop kubuntu-desktop

Try them both.

That's the only way you'll ever know which one you like.

Its like asking someone to explain to you whether you'll like hotdogs or hamburgers better before trying them. It can't be done.

I agree with one exception, you should use ```
sudo aptitude install kubuntu-desktop xubuntu-desktop

aptitude will let you remove what gets installed SOOO much easier if you decide to remove later down the road.

On the original question i like both gnome default, kde3 and kde4. I almost always install gnome, then add the kubuntu-desktop and xubuntu-desktop. I will usually use one for a few months, then another for a few months.....you get the idea

aptitude will let you remove what gets installed SOOO much easier if you decide to remove later down the road.

How so? (I'm actually asking and not arguing)

I'm new to Ubuntu and Linux, but am familiar with the jist of the concepts behind Gnome and KDE. I figured moving over from Windows, I'd prefer KDE since I really loved tweaking and stripping down Windows. Well, turns out, the default setup in Gnome is perfect for me, and I'm an insatiable tinkerer.

I even tried installing Do and using Docky...didn't care for it even, the default Gnome panels can't be beat IMO. And the "show hide buttons" option in the panel prefs make it the most unobtrusive gui I've ever used.

Oh, I didn't care for Docky btw, I actually think Do is very cool.

edit: As far as for which is better, it's a pointless debate. Everyone is different, and uses their computers for different things in different ways. Which is better is a matter of opinion, so it's best to try both out for yourself and decide.