WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: What Windows Manager is Right for TCL  (Read 2415 times)

Offline tclfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
What Windows Manager is Right for TCL
« on: August 18, 2010, 01:48:10 PM »
Please recommend the best one for TCL considering:
- Light as much as possible
- Reasonably looking (Not to crude)
- Support for core important functions

I tried Hackedbox, Openbox, JWM, Icewm and some others...
All these appear to have some issues, such as Hackedbox video corruption conflict with Wbar, not speaking of silly themes, Openbox has pre-populated menu items ready for LXDE it seems, etc... None seems clear choice in terms of presentation and functionality and it is not a matter of taste only...
Is it that light Windows Managers (Their development that is) have been forgotten by developers in the face of this overwhelming bloat of KDE and Gnome?
Please give me a good one, worthwhile for TCL that is not at dead end...

Offline jur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
    • cycling photo essays
Re: What Windows Manager is Right for TCL
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2010, 03:39:53 PM »
Openbox is fully compliant, I use it, but the repo version needs updating with the scripts that the team wrote for it which were not included in the latest version. I added the scripts for myself. Bmarkus indicated so time ago to me he would add the scripts.

Offline jerramy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: What Windows Manager is Right for TCL
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2010, 03:44:39 PM »
Shocking.  I expected a religious war to come about from this question.  Must be everyone's equally confused about the various options.

I personally like fluxbox, though it didn't work flawlessly when I tried it with TCL.  

What I most miss from windows is the ability to open a file manager, and drag a file out onto the desktop (or just a shortcut).  Any suggestions on a file manager / window manager combo that supports that, in a minimalistic fashion?

Offline Jason W

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9730
Re: What Windows Manager is Right for TCL
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2010, 03:55:38 PM »
Rox supports a pinboard with something like drag to desktop features and can be used with different WMs.  Of course LXDE does that kind of stuff quite well, but may or may not be within the realm of minimalistic. 

I don't think it is so much confusion as it is folks just use what they like as each WM has it's own features.  I personally use Icewm mostly since that was my first WM I used and I like the look and feel. 

Offline andy_jp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: What Windows Manager is Right for TCL
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2010, 09:06:15 PM »
Openbox has pre-populated menu items ready for LXDE it seems, etc...

It is for this very reason that I created the MenuMaker extension (menumaker.tcz). To generate a menu for Openbox:
Code: [Select]
mmaker OpenBox

Please note that this will be required each time you install a new application which you want a menu entry for.

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: What Windows Manager is Right for TCL
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2010, 04:51:05 AM »
There are some issues about coexistence of rox pinboard (and/or rox panel) with certain wm's.
It is therefore worth experimenting with "Compabilities" tab of rox options.

My votes go to jwm-snapshot being lightest wm suiting most of my needs and being eyecandy-ish  :) and to flwm mainly for having the rather unique feature of vertical titlebars and therefore saving vertical screen estate. If i wasn't too greedy about resources use I might try windowmaker.
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline tclfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: What Windows Manager is Right for TCL
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2010, 10:29:43 AM »
Thank you all for recommendations.  I hope to get some more ideas, please...
originally I was happy enough with JWM, as I could not stand the crude menu look of FLWM.
Would this be right to say all these WMs are rather old and hardly maintained anymore?