Awesome vs. Xmonad

heleos · 2008-11-07 01:39:33

thayer wrote:

If there is one tangible advantage over Xmonad, it's that the Awesome tag bar responds to mouse interaction...and that's a very big deal for some folks.

That's the reason I use Awesome instead of Xmonad I like keyboard and all, but sometimes its nice to just click

jaideep_jdof · 2008-11-07 05:57:08

There seems to be a memory issue with awesome3 When I use my required apps in awesome3 conky shows that 90 % ram is used but same number of apps in xmonad show 50 % ram use, isn't it strange?

Zeist · 2008-11-07 07:21:18

cardinals_fan wrote:

ST.x wrote:
Gigamo wrote:
Wiboxes, built-in transparency, menu, loads of built-in widgets (promptbox for example, no need for dmenu), etc...
Oh, and can you play Space Invaders with Xmonad? (just to show the extensibility of wiboxes)
If you call those features...

I actually like the built-in promptbox, it has entirely removed my need to use dmenu, so I would say that that is a good feature.

Gigamo · 2008-11-07 09:08:57

cardinals_fan wrote:

ST.x wrote:
Gigamo wrote:
Wiboxes, built-in transparency, menu, loads of built-in widgets (promptbox for example, no need for dmenu), etc...
Oh, and can you play Space Invaders with Xmonad? (just to show the extensibility of wiboxes)
If you call those features...

I could ofcourse go on that Awesome is in my experience faster than Xmonad, but oh well

Intrepid · 2008-11-11 04:14:29

Awesome certainly feels more complete and faster than Xmonad, but I'm sure one could tweak the environments to nearly exactly mimic each other, just like how IceWM can mimic Windows.

The idea of tiling layouts, multiple screens, master windows and slaves, etc. show how similar they are. I just can't get around to configuring Xmonad with Haskell code. The other selling point is the ability to temporarily view more than one tag at once.

Hiz · 2009-11-26 15:34:05

Awesome is easy to customize, like window vertically max , horizontally max.. easy. (maybe this is possible with xmonad if i study Haskell). and awesome can set up window(s) size by mouse at tile mode.
but awesome can easy messed up with full screen more. ex, video full screen mode. xmonad can handle it neat. Awsome custom cursor is still buggy.(xmonad no probrem)
BUT xmonad can crash with synergy....zzz (when i use both xmonad with synergy, server PC can crash. i hope this is only my custom setting problem.) :s

from my experience xmonad is more stable than awesome(except that synergy problem). so i use xmonad. anyway, awesome is best to start tile window manager

aeiluindae · 2010-03-05 22:48:28

Coming from a floating window manager (openbox, or compiz if i felt like eye candy), awesome is a great introduction to tiling wms. If you play around with Conky, you probably already know some Lua, so that's a barrier reduced. Awesome has good, sensible keyboard shortcuts (with the exception of closing a window, I guess its so that you can't close something by accident) AND good mouse functionality.

eyolf · 2010-03-05 23:52:41

moljac024 wrote:

cardinals_fan wrote:
If you can't use dwm, I recommend Xmonad. Awesome's ever-changing config file displeased me.
Awesome's ever-changing config file prevented me from ever even using it. I think I tried it for about 2 minutes though. I happily use Xmonad.

Ehem... How could you notice the ever-changing syntax in 2 minutes...?

ST.x wrote:

If you try the Awesome3.0 release you wont have to keep changing it then.

Oh, things change even in the 3.0 versions. All the time. Every goddamn minor version upgrade, there is some change that makes the previous configuration fail miserably.

Frankly, I think the only reason why I still use awesome (which I do) is laziness. I don't have time to do the initial setup of any of the other tilers. it sucks, though. I know one can do a whole lot with wiboxes and what not -- I've seen it in screenshots and I've even been close to it myself -- but bam! came 3.1, and it took me half a day to figure out how to weed out all the errors created by the syntax changes. Then bam! came 3.2 and another half day out the window. Then bam!... etc. Now I've given up -- I just copy my keybindings to the new config file and that's it.

One of these days, I'm going to give xmonad a chance again.

Awesome - yeah, sure. Sigh.

moljac024 · 2010-03-06 10:50:15

eyolf wrote:

moljac024 wrote:
cardinals_fan wrote:
If you can't use dwm, I recommend Xmonad. Awesome's ever-changing config file displeased me.
Awesome's ever-changing config file prevented me from ever even using it. I think I tried it for about 2 minutes though. I happily use Xmonad.
Ehem... How could you notice the ever-changing syntax in 2 minutes...?

I didn't notice it, I knew/heard about it. So I just didn't want to invest time in always learning a new configuration syntax.

gazj · 2010-03-06 11:37:40

The i3 window manager is the tiling manager for me. The dependencies are so low, the speed is great. Dual screen support is excellent and the config file is sooo simple. It supports tiling, tabbing, stacking and fullscreen. It is in AUR

http://i3.zekjur.net/

my .i3/config as an example

gary@Lister ~ $ cat .i3/config 
# This configuration uses Mod4 and Mod3. Make sure they are mapped properly using xev(1)
# and xmodmap(1). Usually, Mod4 is Alt (Alt_L) and Mod3 is Windows (Super_L)

exec ~/.startup

# Tell i3 about your preferred terminal. You can refer to this as $terminal
# later. It is recommended to set this option to allow i3 to open a terminal
# containing the introduction on first start.
terminal /usr/bin/urxvt

# workspace names
workspace 1 Main
workspace 2 Tiles

# colours
#             border         background    text
client.focused        #1793D1     #1793D1     #ffffff
client.focused_inactive    #333333     #333333     #ffffff
client.unfocused    #333333     #333333     #ffffff
client.urgent        #D11931     #D11931     #ffffff
bar.focused        #1793d1     #1793d1     #ffffff
bar.unfocused        #333333     #333333     #ffffff
bar.urgent        #d11931     #d11931     #ffffff

# ISO 10646 = Unicode
font -*-terminus-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

# Use Mouse+Mod4 to drag floating windows to their wanted position
floating_modifier Mod4

# Fullscreen (Mod4+f)
bindsym Mod4+f f

# Stacking (Mod4+h)
bindsym Mod4+s s

# Tabbed (Mod4+w)
bindsym Mod4+t T

# Default (Mod4+e)
bindsym Mod4+g d

# Toggle tiling/floating of the current window (Mod4+Shift+Space)
bindsym Mod4+space t

# Go into the tiling layer / floating layer, depending on whether
# the current window is tiling / floating (Mod4+t)
# bind Mod4+28 focus ft

# Focus (Mod4+j/k/l/;)
bindsym Mod4+h h
bindsym Mod4+j j
bindsym Mod4+k k
bindsym Mod4+l l
# (alternatively, you can use the cursor keys:)
bindsym Mod4+Left h
bindsym Mod4+Down j
bindsym Mod4+Up k
bindsym Mod4+Right l

# Focus Container (Mod3+j/k/l/;)
bindsym Mod1+h wch
bindsym Mod1+j wcj
bindsym Mod1+k wck
bindsym Mod1+l wcl
# (alternatively, you can use the cursor keys:)
bindsym Mod1+Left wch
bindsym Mod1+Down wcj
bindsym Mod1+Up wck
bindsym Mod1+Right wcl

# Snap (Mod4+Control+j/k/l/;)
bindsym Mod4+Control+h sh
bindsym Mod4+Control+j sj
bindsym Mod4+Control+k sk
bindsym Mod4+Control+l sl
# (alternatively, you can use the cursor keys:)
bindsym Mod4+Control+Left sh
bindsym Mod4+Control+Down sj
bindsym Mod4+Control+Up sk
bindsym Mod4+Control+Right sl

# Move (Mod4+Shift+j/k/l/;)
bindsym Mod4+Shift+h mh
bindsym Mod4+Shift+j mj
bindsym Mod4+Shift+k mk
bindsym Mod4+Shift+l ml
# (alternatively, you can use the cursor keys:)
bindsym Mod4+Shift+Left mh
bindsym Mod4+Shift+Down mj
bindsym Mod4+Shift+Up mk
bindsym Mod4+Shift+Right ml

# Move Container (Mod3+Shift+j/k/l/;)
bindsym Mod1+Shift+h wcmh
bindsym Mod1+Shift+j wcmj
bindsym Mod1+Shift+k wcmk
bindsym Mod1+Shift+l wcml

# Workspaces (Mod4+1/2/…)
bindsym Mod4+1 1
bindsym Mod4+2 2
#bindsym Mod4+3 3
#bindsym Mod4+4 4
#bindsym Mod4+4 5
#bindsym Mod4+6 6
#bindsym Mod4+7 7
#bindsym Mod4+8 8
#bindsym Mod4+9 9
#bindsym Mod4+0 10

# Move to Workspaces
bindsym Mod4+Shift+1 m1
bindsym Mod4+Shift+2 m2
#bindsym Mod4+Shift+3 m3
#bindsym Mod4+Shift+4 m4
#bindsym Mod4+Shift+5 m5
#bindsym Mod4+Shift+6 m6
#bindsym Mod4+Shift+7 m7
#bindsym Mod4+Shift+8 m8
#bindsym Mod4+Shift+9 m9
#bindsym Mod4+Shift+0 m10

# Marking
# Read 1 character and mark the current window with this character
bindsym Mod1+m exec i3-input -p 'mark ' -l 1 -P 'Mark: '
# Read 1 character and go to the window with the character
bindsym Mod1+g exec i3-input -p 'goto ' -l 1 -P 'Goto: '

# Mod4+Enter starts a new terminal
bindsym Mod4+Return exec /usr/bin/urxvt

# Mod4+Shift+q kills the current client
bindsym Mod4+Shift+q kill

# Mod4+v starts dmenu and launches the selected application
# for now, we don't have an own launcher
bindsym Mod4+r exec /usr/bin/dmenu_run

# Mod4+Shift+e exits i3
bindsym Mod4+Shift+x exit

# Mod4+Shift+r restarts i3 inplace
bindsym Mod4+Shift+r reload
bindsym Mod1+shift+r restart

#############################################################
# DELETE THE FOLLOWING LINES TO DISABLE THE WELCOME MESSAGE #
#############################################################
exec xmessage -file /etc/i3/welcome

Dieter@be · 2010-03-07 10:35:42

I think what everyone has said already is pretty accurate.
I have to add only 1 thing:

Procyon wrote:

How is performance when window switching? I tried out awesome3 last week and felt like it did something to the window every time I switched windows in maximized mode causing some awkward visual effects that don't occur in ratpoison.

Indeed, i use awesome 3.4 and it often feels pretty sluggish. Especially when firefox is involved (I guess it's just firefox that needs time to render it's window or something).
Something that also bothers me (a bit) is the awful.rules only are applied after the window appears on screen. so for example if you configure it to move a program to another tag, you will see the window briefly when it spawns, and only then it will move it.

I tried dwm once and was simply amazed by it's speed. in terms of speed, it kicks the ass of any WM I've ever tried.

Gigamo · 2010-03-07 13:02:23

I would just like to point out that it's not the _syntax_ that changes in awesome, just some parts of the API (for the better). Lua stays lua.

b6fan · 2011-07-18 22:16:25

wmii +1
It's just simple and elegant. However, dislike its plan9 virtual filesystem

Now trying i3

jasonwryan · 2011-07-18 22:38:34

Dieter@be wrote:

I tried dwm once and was simply amazed by it's speed. in terms of speed, it kicks the ass of any WM I've ever tried.

Oh yes indeedy...

Viper_Scull · 2011-07-18 23:08:17

i'd give a try to i3 or wmfs as well.

CoolWhip · 2011-07-19 05:03:36

scrotwm.. its simple, fasst, and easy to use. set it up in 5 minutes.

teh · 2011-07-19 05:57:36

scrotwm [2]

Faster, more simple and more light than the WM I use to consider the best in these categories: dwm.

But wmii is the more "rich" and "robust" WM I've ever tried.

Zeist · 2011-07-19 06:20:31

teh wrote:

scrotwm [2]
Faster, more simple and more light than the WM I use to consider the best in these categories: dwm.
But wmii is the more "rich" and "robust" WM I've ever tried.

The only problem I've had with wmii is that you can't turn off window titles. Besides from that it is really nice indeed.

examon · 2011-07-19 10:16:21

I'm using awesome wm for some months and I can say It's really solid wm. I haven't any problems with it at all. Really lightweight, fast, easy to configure, very good support for dualscreen setup (the best I think). I tested many other tiling/dynamics window managers but for me.. awesome3 is the best and I think I'll stay with it for long time.

ANOKNUSA · 2011-07-19 17:06:19

I've been using Awesome for a couple months, and I'm pretty satisfied. Chances are, though, that's just because it's (relatively) well-documented, so sorting out statusbar, font and theme setup, assigning and manipulating windows and tags, etc. weren't too hard to figure out. I have DWM installed, too, but haven't done much more that change some colors and keybindings. I'm sure if I were more knowledgable, I'd play with Xmonad and other WM's. Also, since 4.0 is currently in the works with no upgrade in the immediate future, I haven't had to deal with the infamous config changes (which so far look minor, but we'll see what happens).

Arch Linux

#26 2008-11-07 01:39:33

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#27 2008-11-07 05:57:08

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#28 2008-11-07 07:21:18

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#29 2008-11-07 09:08:57

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#30 2008-11-11 04:14:29

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#31 2009-11-26 15:34:05

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#32 2010-03-05 22:48:28

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#33 2010-03-05 23:52:41

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#34 2010-03-06 10:50:15

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#35 2010-03-06 11:37:40

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#36 2010-03-07 10:35:42

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#37 2010-03-07 13:02:23

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#38 2011-07-18 22:16:25

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#39 2011-07-18 22:38:34

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#40 2011-07-18 23:08:17

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#41 2011-07-19 05:03:36

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#42 2011-07-19 05:57:36

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#43 2011-07-19 06:20:31

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#44 2011-07-19 10:16:21

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

#45 2011-07-19 17:06:19

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Board footer