fastest & lightest window-manager ?

Gambler said:
A slightly different, but similar question: which desktop environments are fairly fast and configurable from GUI at the same time?

I use XFCE right now, but I'm looking for alternatives just to have some choice.
Click to expand...

WindowMaker + wmakerconf + some dockapps could be what you're looking for
 
evilwm, except that the default keybindings overlap with qemu.
blackbox, except that it doesn't seem to like virtual screens larger than the physical screen.
twm is nice and simple and ugly.
 
fvwm, can do all that (including overlapping key bindings with qemu and virtual screens larger than monitor) ;)
nothing can beat it's flexibility
 
Pwm

I can't believe no one has mentioned pwm yet. Small, simple, easy to customize, efficient with desktop real estate, has tabs that rock.
 
Pekwm :)

I tried fluxbox and openbox, the first one fluxbox is easy to configure and got a small toolbar useful but the syntax configuration is freak sometime. Openbox is small and got gtk like tools for configuring it, all of the configuration is in xml which is the uglier language for configuration files (i.e hal)

So I tried pekwm and the syntax is so great, the documentation too and really easy to understand :)
 
Markand said:
Pekwm :)

I tried fluxbox and openbox, the first one fluxbox is easy to configure and got a small toolbar useful but the syntax configuration is freak sometime. Openbox is small and got gtk like tools for configuring it, all of the configuration is in xml which is the uglier language for configuration files (i.e hal)

So I tried pekwm and the syntax is so great, the documentation too and really easy to understand :)
Click to expand...

PekWM is indeed great, is cleaner and simpler then fluxbox or openbox (xml ...), but if you need gtk2 tools, there also exist gtk2 tools for fluxbox, like fluxmenu, fluxconf, ...
 
i tried xfce, kde, gnome, fluxbox, icewm, fvwm, but then went to the tiled ones. i liked ion for several months, but then settled on dwm which i've been using for the better part of a year.

i think there are 2 issues when choosing a wm:
1. does it fit the way you want to work
2. are you going to have to work extra hard to configure it

#2 may be worth it, if #1 is.
for me, dwm let's me do things with minimal effort and didn't take much getting used to either.
 
DemoDoG said:
Wouldn´t it be great to have a FreeBSD-wm with graphics and menues designed for freebsd-use only :)
Click to expand...

Why not just have FreeBSD themes for existing window managers? Most WMs have theming capabilities. KDE, GNOME, XFCE, Fluxbox, Windowmaker, etc.
 
Gambler said:
A slightly different, but similar question: which desktop environments are fairly fast and configurable from GUI at the same time?
Click to expand...

Actual desktops, as opposed to window managers, are few in number. You have KDE, GNOME, XFCE, LXDE, and Enlightenment. Rox and WindowMaker/GNUstep might also count.

I'm a huge KDE fan, I just love it. But it fails the "fairly fast" department. GNOME is the next in line for the speed department, but is not as configurable. Enlightenment is fairly minimal as a desktop, but is snappy, configurable, and lots of eye candy. LXDE is more of a collection of desktop "parts" than an actual desktop, making it very configurable. It's also fast and snappy. You might give it a shot, although there isn't a meta-port for it.
 
ossnet said:
4 gigs is standard now a days speed shouldn't even be a factor
Click to expand...

This is not true, even with pretty modern hardware there is a significant difference in how fast or sluggish a WM feels.

The best example is probably Windows Vista vs. Windows XP (Or vs. Windows vista classic UI), while benchmarks don't really show a difference in speed, the Windows XP GUI feels much more responsive and faster, and Vista slow and sluggish ... The difference is very little, but it is noticeable.

Aside from this, not everyone is running a i7 with 4GB RAM and a GTX280 ... Some people actually use older hardware.
 
tangram said:
Speak for yourself ;)
Click to expand...

I'm old old hardware also but I was lookling at getting a new box

any MS OS I always turn off all unnessacary services and startup proccesses that's the number one way to fix a slow windows box
 
dwm - http://dwm.suckless.org/

I'm more of the "I don't want overlapping windows" camp (unless it is absolutely required) and spend most of my day in terminal sessions so dwm - fast, light - is my choice.

awesome I've barely tried but believe it is based on dwm.
 
This may be the wrong place to ask, but would any of you care to share what you have in your menu file?
I would be interested in fvwm, icewm, pekwm.

FWIW, my computer (till I get a new power supply for another one) is 350mhz with 250megs ram. I run FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Vectorlinux 6.0 light with icewm on them.
 
argv - I'm glad you posted an update on dwm; indeed you can run most (any I've tried) image display utils; gimp works just fine floating. I like the "rules" - having specific apps lauch into specific desktops, with the mode set as appropriate. (most of mine remain tiled)

All that in ~ 2000 lines of C code and precious little memory.

Currently I need to run MSWindows in one of my displays so I run dwm in a Xming session; when I need MSWin less I flip back and run Windows headless.

I rather like the my current config - VirtuaWin gives me desktop paging on Windows; slick little utility almost makes Windows bearable. Perhaps a bit too bearable; I have something of a preference for surfing the web using my FreeBSD box - feels safer - but I rather like Google Chrome and its too darn handy with a Windows desktop always a keystroke away.
 
argv, have you ever noticed the `Enter' key on your keyboard? Using it once every once in a while would make your posts so much more readable. ;)
 
I run a minimalistic window manager, no icons. 4 or so terminals
If I need more I run "Eterm &" in one
...........
Way less time to install a "wow" fvwm2rc from the web (find 7, test all)
than beginning to learn gnome (here)
............
The post above about tuning Windows I somewhat agree with, having
run win98 with two firewalls (learned from bsd) and two antivirus.
Currently not dual-booted due to installed memory greater than
what it used to be. But prior to tuning it, I had persistent BSOD's
and it still won't properly run some things (one very good file
indexer purports to be indexing files but is actually only reading
the titles, the indexes stay stale)
..............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top