5 ms·

>the best window manager on the market alongside metro I'm sorry, but are you kidding me?

WayneDB 14y ago
As a matter of fact, nothing even comes close to the balance of stability, backwards compatibility, consistency, robustness and flexibility that Windows offers. What do you think is better and why? Perhaps "better" should be defined. I certainly don't think that shiny is better. I prefer utilitarian and flexible interfaces. Windows fits that bill swimmingly and I think most businesses would agree because I don't see many of them using anything else outside of Google.
- lelandbatey 14y ago
  I realize this isn't exactly what you asked for, but my personal opinion in terms of straight up window management is a solid tiling window manager like dwm or xmonad. The Windows WM adds a bit to much shine to windows (for me) and doesn't have the efficiency that I love with tiling window managers. Mostly the ability to have everything I want viewable at once, along with keyboard commands to manage everything, is what makes tiling window managers so awesome for me. Having said that, I do recognize that it's only this way for me. For many people, the default Windows WM provides plenty of power and flexibility to be awesome.
  - ehsanu1 14y ago
    nothing even comes close to the balance of stability, backwards compatibility, consistency, robustness and flexibility I was going to suggest XMonad as well, in response to this. Seriously, try it if you're using Linux.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I'll ask you the same thing, how? How is it "better"? It has a feature? Waving your hands around and laundry listing things without any explanation is wildly unconvincing. You like utilitarian and flexible and you're really sitting there telling me Windows is the sweet spot for that? Are you being intentionally ironic? That's the posterboy slogan for Linux if I've ever heard it. I guarantee there's no way that the Windows WM is "more flexible" than any linux WM. And utilitarian? I assume you have workspaces in Windows? You can activate/deactivate stick edges easily? You can do any dimensional grid system you like? You can have floating windows? Those are features I use every single day. I feel like I've at least offered why I don't see how Windows's WM could possibly be "better" but then again I'm not the one making that claim. So far it's just you and other guy acting like it should be obvious why Windows' is superior.
  - maratd 14y ago
    > I'll ask you the same thing, how? How is it "better"? It's consistent. It's been consistent for 7 iterations. 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8. It's stable. Everything shows up exactly where it's supposed to and works like it's supposed to. I have 4 high-resolution monitors set up and Windows handles it like no other operating system could. Consistent + Stable = Win However, what keeps me using Windows isn't the GUI. It's the driver availability, quality, and support. And that, of course, comes from market dominance.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Again, what are you talking about. Be specific. What is consistent? The behavior? The display of open windows? The performance? The appearance? Literally NONE of those are identical from version-to-version in Windows. I can tell you how it changed in almost every version in one way or another. And besides, again, nothing to show how it's any better. You want <title> <minimize> <maximize> <close>? Guess what? You just described almost every window manager in existence, save for them having those switched around. They're all drag-and-dropable, they're all resizeable. I don't think you guys have anything to hold onto other than lofty words and what you're used to. As for drivers, that's a sad joke that just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about. Go buy a Samsung Series 9. Works out of the box in Arch, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora. The: wired, wireless, display driver, chipset driver, memory card reader and touchpad were ALL broken in Windows 7 and Windows 8.
      - maratd 14y ago
        > As for drivers, that's a sad joke that just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about. Go buy a Samsung Series 9. You are restricted to hardware that works on your operating system of choice. You read forums and check to make sure everything will work the way you want to. Even then, you have to constantly worry that whatever solution you hacked together won't give you degraded performance. I buy any hardware I want, with the full knowledge that it will work properly on Windows the way the manufacturer intended. Even Apple, the only major manufacturer out there that doesn't make hardware targeted at Windows, puts out drivers for Windows. Oh, and I wasn't even talking about vanilla laptop/desktop hardware. I was talking about fingerprint readers, high-end or esoteric NICs, FM/AM radio receivers, brand-spankin-new motherboards, etc. That doesn't apply to the majority of people, but it applies to me. > I don't think you guys have anything to hold onto other than lofty words and what you're used to. If we're used to something, then it must be consistent? Otherwise, how can you get used to it? > Again, what are you talking about. Be specific. What is consistent? The experience. Somebody who knows how to use 95, can use 98, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 with ease. That's why everybody's going nuts about 8. With 8, you have to click on a tile before you get that consistent experience.
tjoff 14y ago
There are only two polished window managers on the market, windows and OS X. And of those windows come out way ahead. A window manager that doesn't handle multiple monitors well in 2012 is just sad...
- blacksmith_tb 14y ago
  OS X handles multiple monitors well enough, or did you mean Gnome? Windows UI is polished and has some good conventions, except that I keep trying to do things in terminal that aren't there...
  - Locke1689 14y ago
    If you full screen a video on one monitor in os x the other one blanks out. It doesn't stretch the video or anything, it just blanks it. I think vlc can prevent that, but it's still annoying.
    - jrajav 14y ago
      It isn't just fullscreen video, it's fullscreen anything. Anything that doesn't exhibit that behavior is using a fullscreen "hack," i.e. the way they did it before Lion.
  - byproxy 14y ago
    Try using Windows Powershell. I think some common Unix commands are supported.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  First of all, direct multi monitor support is handled in a different layer than the window manager. At best, maybe you meant the overall desktop environment, but again, I don't know how you can make such absurd, outlandish claims. Please, name something you can do in Windows or Mac and I'll tell you how easy it is to accomplish with my setup in Linux. And also, how is Windows better than Mac in this regard? You have a massive problem with "my opinion is obviously objectively right".
emeraldd 14y ago
There's one feature that keeps windows out of the running for me that almost every X Windows manager has in some form or another. Multiple desktops (not multiple monitors). I know there was an XP powertoy that sort of did it for windows but it ran slower than dirt on any hardware I had available. Without that, I can't help but see the Windows WM as hobbled.
- R_Edward 14y ago
  Maybe this should be addressed elsewhere, but I wonder what you see as the benefit of multiple desktops. I've dabbled with them on occasion, and could never really see the point. Maybe my workstyle just doesn't fit well with it, and maybe I need to be more organized and/or disciplined. Obviously many, many people do like the capability, and I wonder what I'm missing.
  - skyhook_mockups 14y ago
    I find virtual desktops to be most useful on small screens. So on my laptop which has limited screen real estate I have a text editor on one desktop and by moving my mouse to the top left I switch to my browser desktop - v.useful Only problem is that this has become so ingrained that I keep doing it on computers without this setup!
  - Peaker 14y ago
    I can't really deal with a taskbar or alttab list having dozens of items in it. It's unmanageable. I use desktops to partition stuff so there are manageable amounts of Windows at a time.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    My best use case for multiple desktops is to have my fun stuff on one desktop and my work stuff on another. When the desktop flips, so does my mind. Also, when the boss walks by it's easy to hide HN and move to work stuff.
    - tesseractive 14y ago
Zenst 14y ago
The best GUI is the one that works best for you, not me. That is the only true answear upon anying with even a hint of artistic creativity ( colours, shapes, movement of those shapes ) as there is no one answear. Some people like to use window layout and features in different ways for different tasks. For some Metro may be perfect and for others it is an offence to the pixels upon there monitors. Those are mostly going to be the ones that as long as they can pull up Terminal windows, or just plays open source games, or many other variations of how we use the tool we call a computer. So in short for him he is not kidding, for you he is and your both right, lets not go down this path.

As a matter of fact, nothing even comes close to the balance of stability, backwards compatibility, consistency, robustness and flexibility that Windows offers. What do you think is better and why? Perhaps "better" should be defined. I certainly don't think that shiny is better. I prefer utilitarian and flexible interfaces. Windows fits that bill swimmingly and I think most businesses would agree because I don't see many of them using anything else outside of Google.

lelandbatey 14y ago
I realize this isn't exactly what you asked for, but my personal opinion in terms of straight up window management is a solid tiling window manager like dwm or xmonad. The Windows WM adds a bit to much shine to windows (for me) and doesn't have the efficiency that I love with tiling window managers. Mostly the ability to have everything I want viewable at once, along with keyboard commands to manage everything, is what makes tiling window managers so awesome for me. Having said that, I do recognize that it's only this way for me. For many people, the default Windows WM provides plenty of power and flexibility to be awesome.
- ehsanu1 14y ago
  nothing even comes close to the balance of stability, backwards compatibility, consistency, robustness and flexibility I was going to suggest XMonad as well, in response to this. Seriously, try it if you're using Linux.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
I'll ask you the same thing, how? How is it "better"? It has a feature? Waving your hands around and laundry listing things without any explanation is wildly unconvincing. You like utilitarian and flexible and you're really sitting there telling me Windows is the sweet spot for that? Are you being intentionally ironic? That's the posterboy slogan for Linux if I've ever heard it. I guarantee there's no way that the Windows WM is "more flexible" than any linux WM. And utilitarian? I assume you have workspaces in Windows? You can activate/deactivate stick edges easily? You can do any dimensional grid system you like? You can have floating windows? Those are features I use every single day. I feel like I've at least offered why I don't see how Windows's WM could possibly be "better" but then again I'm not the one making that claim. So far it's just you and other guy acting like it should be obvious why Windows' is superior.
- maratd 14y ago
  > I'll ask you the same thing, how? How is it "better"? It's consistent. It's been consistent for 7 iterations. 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8. It's stable. Everything shows up exactly where it's supposed to and works like it's supposed to. I have 4 high-resolution monitors set up and Windows handles it like no other operating system could. Consistent + Stable = Win However, what keeps me using Windows isn't the GUI. It's the driver availability, quality, and support. And that, of course, comes from market dominance.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Again, what are you talking about. Be specific. What is consistent? The behavior? The display of open windows? The performance? The appearance? Literally NONE of those are identical from version-to-version in Windows. I can tell you how it changed in almost every version in one way or another. And besides, again, nothing to show how it's any better. You want <title> <minimize> <maximize> <close>? Guess what? You just described almost every window manager in existence, save for them having those switched around. They're all drag-and-dropable, they're all resizeable. I don't think you guys have anything to hold onto other than lofty words and what you're used to. As for drivers, that's a sad joke that just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about. Go buy a Samsung Series 9. Works out of the box in Arch, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora. The: wired, wireless, display driver, chipset driver, memory card reader and touchpad were ALL broken in Windows 7 and Windows 8.
    - maratd 14y ago
      > As for drivers, that's a sad joke that just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about. Go buy a Samsung Series 9. You are restricted to hardware that works on your operating system of choice. You read forums and check to make sure everything will work the way you want to. Even then, you have to constantly worry that whatever solution you hacked together won't give you degraded performance. I buy any hardware I want, with the full knowledge that it will work properly on Windows the way the manufacturer intended. Even Apple, the only major manufacturer out there that doesn't make hardware targeted at Windows, puts out drivers for Windows. Oh, and I wasn't even talking about vanilla laptop/desktop hardware. I was talking about fingerprint readers, high-end or esoteric NICs, FM/AM radio receivers, brand-spankin-new motherboards, etc. That doesn't apply to the majority of people, but it applies to me. > I don't think you guys have anything to hold onto other than lofty words and what you're used to. If we're used to something, then it must be consistent? Otherwise, how can you get used to it? > Again, what are you talking about. Be specific. What is consistent? The experience. Somebody who knows how to use 95, can use 98, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 with ease. That's why everybody's going nuts about 8. With 8, you have to click on a tile before you get that consistent experience.

tjoff 14y ago

There are only two polished window managers on the market, windows and OS X. And of those windows come out way ahead. A window manager that doesn't handle multiple monitors well in 2012 is just sad...

blacksmith_tb 14y ago
OS X handles multiple monitors well enough, or did you mean Gnome? Windows UI is polished and has some good conventions, except that I keep trying to do things in terminal that aren't there...
- Locke1689 14y ago
  If you full screen a video on one monitor in os x the other one blanks out. It doesn't stretch the video or anything, it just blanks it. I think vlc can prevent that, but it's still annoying.
  - jrajav 14y ago
    It isn't just fullscreen video, it's fullscreen anything. Anything that doesn't exhibit that behavior is using a fullscreen "hack," i.e. the way they did it before Lion.
- byproxy 14y ago
  Try using Windows Powershell. I think some common Unix commands are supported.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
First of all, direct multi monitor support is handled in a different layer than the window manager. At best, maybe you meant the overall desktop environment, but again, I don't know how you can make such absurd, outlandish claims. Please, name something you can do in Windows or Mac and I'll tell you how easy it is to accomplish with my setup in Linux. And also, how is Windows better than Mac in this regard? You have a massive problem with "my opinion is obviously objectively right".

emeraldd 14y ago

There's one feature that keeps windows out of the running for me that almost every X Windows manager has in some form or another. Multiple desktops (not multiple monitors). I know there was an XP powertoy that sort of did it for windows but it ran slower than dirt on any hardware I had available. Without that, I can't help but see the Windows WM as hobbled.

R_Edward 14y ago
Maybe this should be addressed elsewhere, but I wonder what you see as the benefit of multiple desktops. I've dabbled with them on occasion, and could never really see the point. Maybe my workstyle just doesn't fit well with it, and maybe I need to be more organized and/or disciplined. Obviously many, many people do like the capability, and I wonder what I'm missing.
- skyhook_mockups 14y ago
  I find virtual desktops to be most useful on small screens. So on my laptop which has limited screen real estate I have a text editor on one desktop and by moving my mouse to the top left I switch to my browser desktop - v.useful Only problem is that this has become so ingrained that I keep doing it on computers without this setup!
- Peaker 14y ago
  I can't really deal with a taskbar or alttab list having dozens of items in it. It's unmanageable. I use desktops to partition stuff so there are manageable amounts of Windows at a time.
- freehunter 14y ago
  My best use case for multiple desktops is to have my fun stuff on one desktop and my work stuff on another. When the desktop flips, so does my mind. Also, when the boss walks by it's easy to hide HN and move to work stuff.
  - tesseractive 14y ago

Zenst 14y ago

The best GUI is the one that works best for you, not me. That is the only true answear upon anying with even a hint of artistic creativity ( colours, shapes, movement of those shapes ) as there is no one answear. Some people like to use window layout and features in different ways for different tasks. For some Metro may be perfect and for others it is an offence to the pixels upon there monitors. Those are mostly going to be the ones that as long as they can pull up Terminal windows, or just plays open source games, or many other variations of how we use the tool we call a computer. So in short for him he is not kidding, for you he is and your both right, lets not go down this path.