I have been a Linux user for the last 5 years and have had the privilege of using different window managers,but I can't remember the last time I read the documentation after trying on a new window manager, do I know it's there yes but most of the time I want to know how user friendly it is that means just log on and see what I can do without having to start reading docs. Am always trying to convert my family members to Linux, Just setup grandma with mint 4 months ago and she is happy with it. So ease of use is important, if for me to get to an app on one manager I need 2 clicks and on another I need 3 clicks I will always go with the 2 clicks manager, and more times than not this turns out to be Gnome over KDE as per my experience.
I can get whatever I need done on any manager as my bootable media consists of different distros, but the selling point for me is when my wife or any other family member has to use my box how easy is it for them to use it.

I've used Gnome, KDE, Xfce, Fluxbox, and very briefly a couple of others I can't think of the names of. Fluxbox is good if you want a very simple desktop. Looks nice, too. Sort of funny to configure, but I didn't learn about it for very long.

Of Gnome and KDE, I'm not sure which I like better as far as comparing every detail of them, to be honest. I don't know everything about KDE. Compared to Gnome, I've hardly used KDE. I don't have any specific major problems with it, but if I have to pick just one desktop (which is what I'd like to do) I go with Gnome.

Choice of programs: Either.
Ease of use and configuration (without a lot of reading): Gnome.
Looks: Either, but I prefer Gnome.
I read that Linus Torvalds likes KDE and thinks Gnome treats its users like their stupid... I don't know what he means.

Because people are saying that KDE4 is finally starting to be safe to come back to, I decided to try it.

So I ran "pacman -S kde".

It's actually not that bad any more, even though still a bit glitchy.

But overall it's pretty nice.

KWin really impressed me with features like tabbed windows and taskbar previews that even work when the window is iconified. And I think that the light blue glow around the focused window is neat.

He's a GNOME/Fedora user (I guess he didn't like first KDE4 versions).
I don't don't like either but prefer GNOME because it's easier (who needs a full desktop anyway, my system is bloated enough without them).

IMHO you're all missing the most obvious problems for both GNOME and KDE.
The many incompatible auto-mounting tools, the many broken sound mixers, the many broken network tools...
If one of those big DE's would finally fix all that I would probably stop bothering building everything myself (If not, I'll just keep using the parts that work).

I just remembered a great description of KDE from a friend I talk to on IRC:

I'm having a hard time believing they still allow threads like this: Emacs vs. vi anyone?

For me the choice came down to using my two main applications which are Emacs and Firefox. For me, both function significantly better under Gnome. I liked the look and configurability of KDE 3.5, but KDE 4 just didn't seem to do anything that I wanted.

As far as "speed" I can't use either on my $20 laptop. I use LXDE.

Joel

vi > emacs
GNOME > KDE

I agree. An editor where you don't need to leave the qwerty section of your keyboard is definitely a faster way to type up a text file. Plus emacs seemed pretty bloated when I used it. But this is a GNOME vs KDE religious debate not a vi vs emacs.