The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" actually means.

I didn't read the rest of your post, but this is one of the most thoughtless, idiodic comments that I have read in a while. You bash people for saying KDE is integrated, then say that it isn't, then you say that XP and MacOS X are more integrated, then you reveal that you don't know what integrated means. How can you say that XP and MacOS X are more integrated when you admit that you have no basis to measure integration. It's simply ridiculous.

By the way, the reason people think that KDE is more integrated, is because there is more sharing of standardized components. For example, the open file dialog has many options on the way it displays files, and after customizing it, it will look the same when used from any KDE application. Gnome doesn't even have an open file dialog that is worth a damn.