Opinions about different WMs?

hk2717 · 2007-12-05 01:44:02

Hi, Archers. I have been reading this forum for quite a long time and I am wondering as there are so many window managers, what are their pros and cons?

I know that there are tiling WM, such as dwm, wmii, ratpoison, awesome, ion3 and xmonad. dwm seems like the fastest one but it needs re-compiling to change the configuration, while xmonad looks like the most 'modern' one and with the best extendability.

As non-tiling WM, there are E17, Openbox, Fluxbox, IceWM, FVWM and many others I cannot remember, all of them claim themselves as 'lightning fast' WMs. So, would you mind sharing your idea on: Which one is faster? Which one has good balance between performance and appearance (or usability)? Which one has many good themes avaliable?

Thanks ahead.

dolby · 2007-12-05 01:52:53

I think your questions are totally pointless. Archinux makes it very easy to try them all and make up your mind yourself. speed isnt the first thing users seek in a window manager otherwise they would probably use twm. search/browse the forum there are million wm threads and screenshots.

on an OT note: is window managers all ppl care about around here?

buttons · 2007-12-05 02:04:52

dolby wrote:

I think your questions are totally pointless. Archinux makes it very easy to try them all and make up your mind yourself. speed isnt the first thing users seek in a window manager otherwise they would probably use twm. search/browse the forum there are million wm threads and screenshots.
on an OT note: is window managers all ppl care about around here?

+1

If you're just talking about speed, window managers that are fast are not named Compiz. Ones that don't make use of any bloaty toolkit (metacity, kwin) are also preferred.

Pretty much everything else can easily make the claim "lightning fast."

hk2717 · 2007-12-05 02:44:06

dolby wrote:

I think your questions are totally pointless. Archinux makes it very easy to try them all and make up your mind yourself. speed isnt the first thing users seek in a window manager otherwise they would probably use twm. search/browse the forum there are million wm threads and screenshots.
on an OT note: is window managers all ppl care about around here?

Yes you are right, I can install all of them and test one by one, but I do not think it is fair to judge a WM or software if you haven't used it for a period of time that it is long enough to gain comprehensive and thorough knowledge of it.

There are indeed many threads about WM in the forum, but most of them are scattered pieces of users' idea of a WM. What I'm seeking is users that have extensive experience between different WMs and how they judge the characteristics of each WM and the differences between them.

I'm sorry I did not state myself clearly as English is not my mother tongue and I'm probably not good at asking questions. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

rdt · 2007-12-05 03:23:40

I find that fluxbox will do all that I need in an X window manager. I am quite happy with it. I used to use KDE on "other" distributions but have settled on fluxbox on Arch. By the way, I am an "old time" linux user, I have been using it since 1992. Yes long before the kernel version was 1.0.

Leigh · 2007-12-05 06:18:34

Same here. I always prefered kde, but ended up switching to fluxbox. It was a little cumbersome to get use to, but overall I'm really happy with it. I would say it's worth the time it takes to configure and tweak to your personal tastes, if thats what your asking. I havn't really spent a lot of time with any other wm's to give an opinion about them.

Actually I think one of the most enjoyable things about linux is trying out different things. What one person really likes, another person might not. We all have unique tastes : )

mumpf · 2007-12-05 19:09:37

As usual in the open-software world, documentation is essential. I have used xfce for quite a while and I have been using Icewm for about 6 weeks: xfce includes a login-manager, a print manager, but in Icewm I have to setup everything manually. This takes a lot of time. Icewm is very fast (including the start of applications), but there are so many small things which must be resolved or configured in icewm and there are other things in life than to configure icewm... In addition it took me quite some time to get the necessary information for icewm. The menue of xfce on the other hand is very difficult to customize compared to icewm.

I have also tried e17, which is a pretty fast environment. But e17 is still not stable. That's why I would recommend xfce in case you have a pretty fast PC (e.g. Athlon 1600+ upwards). gnome and kde are too slow to my "gusto".

Using arch you can try different environments without any risk, so give it a try.

Last edited by mumpf (2007-12-05 19:13:57)

wuischke · 2007-12-05 20:03:17

In case of window managers it's less a case of speed (they are all pretty fast), but more of usabilty: How fast can you use them?

I run plain OpenBox without a panel or anything else and have keyboard shortcuts to start a terminal, gmrun and opera. For me that's the fastest and "best" way to get my work done, I have a pretty good Alt+Tab function to change between apps, virtual desktops, nothing on the desktop (like the dock/panel for Fluxbox and Window maker) and it fits my usage demands very well.

Others prefer a good panel or a mac-like application starter and can work faster this way. See what fits your style best and try out new things.

Last edited by wuischke (2007-12-05 20:04:41)

sen · 2007-12-05 22:21:02

hk2717 wrote:

What I'm seeking is users that have extensive experience between different WMs and how they judge the characteristics of each WM and the differences between them.

Well, in the end it's all about personal taste, so if you answer to that you are bound to make subjective statements. What buttons and dolby said is right, the best way to find 'your' wm is to try out different ones... sometimes you can't point out which features you like/dislike just from a description or a screenshot.

buttons wrote:

Pretty much everything else can easily make the claim "lightning fast."

I agree. If you have an up to date pc, you don't notice major speed differences.

I'll give you a few hints about the wm's that I used.

Gnome(metacity)/KDE(kwin)
They have the typical advantage of a desktop environment, they feel 'complete out of the box' because all apps are well integrated and functional. Probably the best choice for newcomers and work dedicated tasks (were you just want a functional system). The downside is that they're bloated which can be really irritating... they have apps for nearly everything to give you a 'complete' desktop but if you know what you want (-> experienced user) you'll want to kickout all the other stuff to organize the chaos. Sure, you can start modding around until you only have the parts you want but I see no reason to do that when there are other alternatives (see xfce).

xfce(xfwm)
It has the advantage of a desktop environment but it's pretty minimal compared to KDE/Gnome. If you already know what apps etc you want to use and like the 'standard' behavior and assembling of wm's that are common, xfce is a good wm to start building your customized system. The build in compositing manager is also pretty nice and resource friendly.
subjective side note: overall my favourite wm

e17/e16
I have no up to date information on e17 because I haven't used it for a while. My last impression was that it is to buggy for everyday use.
side note: e17 is hell for theme creators... I've never spend that much time on a single theme than for my e17 theme. xD
I have no up to date infos for e16 either but it's a nice and simple wm (comparable to the *box wm's) which can be quite useful when you have the time to configure it properly... but it's probably outdated now.

*box
If you like it really simple but don't want a tiling wm, they're probably you're choice. They're not usable out of the box, so you need time to set them up properly (create menus, start scripts etc). I've used blackbox for a long time but it's pretty outdated. The last box wm I used was openbox and it's definitely recommendable.
However, I would recommend it only to people who don't mind fiddling with configs.

tiling wm's
Pure minimalism... nothing for people who are afraid of the cli, hate editing config files and expect eye candy. I think that I can't say something objective about the major approach, the window-tiling, about these wm's. You like it or you hate it, it's probably that simple. However, if you're familiar with the key bindings, the usability and using-speed is really great!
I've only used dwm and awesome up until now. Since awesome is a dwm clone, they're pretty comparable. The major difference is that awesome has a config file and when you edit it, all you have to do is to press a key combo to apply the changes. When you want to change the dwm config, you've to recompile it every time... that's why I would recommend awesome.
Xmonad looks promising as well, but haskell looks weird! ^^

Last edited by sen (2007-12-05 22:26:43)

peets · 2007-12-06 02:24:41

I tried to find a perfect window manager for a long time. It turns out there's no such thing. I should have known.

Tiling window managers actually "manage" your windows. They will resize and move them if they feel the need to. Some people find this makes them more productive (they don't spend time moving and resizing the windows themselves). I don't like having a WM move a window that I've already placed.

For other window managers, I found I considered these things important:
- easy/fast way to bring focus to the window you want
- short time between when a window first pops up and when it lands in the spot where you want it
- can be configured to behave the way you want
- configurable theme / no theme

I find pekWM is pretty good at letting me do that. I have my own theme (which just draws a 1px line around my windows; oh, it draws pretty menus too), I have my own key and mouse bindings, custom menus, and a few autoproperties. I spend little time moving and resizing windows: the WM does things properly. http://pekwm.org/trac

Compiz-fusion is also cool. It lets you do useful things like zoom in and zoom out. It looks pretty. But it has some serious lacks in window management, and can't be configured to a fine enough granularity for my tastes.

Here's a tip: don't look too much. Most WMs are o.k. Find one now, if it does ok, get used to it and stick to it. Window management is not that important. If you're an interface nut, spend time finding a learning to use a good shell (command prompt). That can save you a lot of time.

leo2501 · 2007-12-06 11:57:32

hi! im a full fluxbox user, i make my menu like i want it to be, and put in there a lot of things to make it more usefull, fluxbox has everything i need in a wm, but since i installed arch, a year or so ago, i have the feeling that fvwm is for me, a couple of times use it a little, but i want to configure it similar to my flux conf, i mean, i have the flux bar (the one with the opened apps) and the slit where gkrellm is so the pager at the left... i know that is posible with fvwm, but i need a complete day or so to play with it

iphitus · 2007-12-06 12:16:42

best way to find out is to just try them... though even that doesnt always work. I'm still not satisfied after using KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, Openbox, Ion, ratpoison, xfce, dwm, e16 all for extended periods of time during my years of using linux.

*shrug* I will write my ideal wm one day...

limpio · 2007-12-06 16:33:20

I use icewm and ratpoison depending how i feel that day
I used yaourt to install menumaker from the AUR repo for icewm, configured my preferences and keybindings and also installed the icewm-themes app.

Did the same with ratpoison, changed C-t to F8 and it only has one configuration file (.ratpoisonrc), very fast, no nonsense, ready for work, but no taskbar.

I think it depends on your personality. Me? i can't care less for eye-candy, i want speed.

Ram usage is mostly the same for icewm, fluxbox: 4-5 MB RAM
ratpoison : 1,5 MB RAM

To each its own!

pauldonnelly · 2007-12-07 04:42:51

limpio wrote:

Did the same with ratpoison, changed C-t to F8 and it only has one configuration file (.ratpoisonrc), very fast, no nonsense, ready for work, but no taskbar.

Changing it to a single key like that is good (I like to use the menu key), but even better is to make some more top-level bindings so that you can select windows 1-12 with f1-f12.

hk2717 · 2007-12-07 09:27:47

Thank you everyone and thank you very much sen and peets. Very helpful information for new users like me to find their own ideal WM/DE without hopping/messing around too much. Thank you.

tuxmans · 2007-12-08 23:50:05

hk2717 wrote:

Hi, Archers. I have been reading this forum for quite a long time and I am wondering as there are so many window managers, what are their pros and cons?
I know that there are tiling WM, such as dwm, wmii, ratpoison, awesome, ion3 and xmonad. dwm seems like the fastest one but it needs re-compiling to change the configuration, while xmonad looks like the most 'modern' one and with the best extendability.
As non-tiling WM, there are E17, Openbox, Fluxbox, IceWM, FVWM and many others I cannot remember, all of them claim themselves as 'lightning fast' WMs. So, would you mind sharing your idea on: Which one is faster? Which one has good balance between performance and appearance (or usability)? Which one has many good themes avaliable?
Thanks ahead.

GNOME = don't use unless you can spare 256MB
*KDE* = don't use unless your computer can save up 300MB
IceWM = use on old systems
*RP* (RatPosion) = use on very old systems

* = I recommend

skottish · 2007-12-09 00:11:26

sen wrote:

I have no up to date information on e17 because I haven't used it for a while. My last impression was that it is to buggy for everyday use.

It's not so buggy anymore. A little quirky would describe it best now.

ezzetabi · 2007-12-11 09:24:20

pekwm is also nice, it just lack for utf-8 support and windows may have strange titles when non ascii characters should be printed.

Bison · 2007-12-11 14:11:00

I prefer ratpoison for its keyboard support and easy configuration. I haven't changed my config in about a year and a half, and it stays out of my way. Couple that with either links or firefox with the 'vimperator' plugin, and you will be unstoppable!

Arch Linux

#1 2007-12-05 01:44:02

Opinions about different WMs?

#2 2007-12-05 01:52:53

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#3 2007-12-05 02:04:52

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#4 2007-12-05 02:44:06

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#5 2007-12-05 03:23:40

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#6 2007-12-05 06:18:34

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#7 2007-12-05 19:09:37

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#8 2007-12-05 20:03:17

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#9 2007-12-05 22:21:02

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#10 2007-12-06 02:24:41

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#11 2007-12-06 11:57:32

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#12 2007-12-06 12:16:42

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#13 2007-12-06 16:33:20

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#14 2007-12-07 04:42:51

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#15 2007-12-07 09:27:47

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#16 2007-12-08 23:50:05

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#17 2007-12-09 00:11:26

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#18 2007-12-11 09:24:20

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

#19 2007-12-11 14:11:00

Re: Opinions about different WMs?

Board footer