Re: [wmii] Swapping (was: Re: mouse and tagging)

From: Stefan Tibus <>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:08:50 +0200

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:37:34AM +0200, Sander van Dijk wrote:
> You could also put your 'main' column in max mode, moving clients in
> and out of them as you see fit, instead of 'reserving' a column for
> one client only.
Still this resizes all clients in the slave column and also it
completely hides one client. By swapping I have it smaller, but
still visible... If I don't need other clients visible, I prefer
max/stack anyways.

> >Unnecessary resizings and redrawings
> >are just as much CPU waste.
> Agreed, but I work on a P2 (400 mHz), I never use horizontal swapping,
> and I can't see I've ever been slowed down by any redrawing (I do not
> know of course what you mean exactly by 'older machines', but I guess
> mine would be among them :-).
Yes. And right now I have 400MHz at my finger-tips as well. But
I have slower machines and like to have a conceptually modern
wm there as well. And CPU-waste is CPU-waste, even if it may not
be noticeable, if it is not felt. Nowadays too many programs are
wasting too many CPU-time (that's why some people prefer C over C++
e.g.) just because the CPU can support it. Less CPU-waste is why I
often prefer good text-based programs on nice-looking graphical

> >> beside a bunch of code.
> >Not an argument, if it makes it slower. If somebody uses move only
> >then he's not forced to use them...
> I believe it doesn't make it slower, it makes things simpler instead.
It doesn't make wmii slower, but it may make working with it slower
(for some people).

> wmii != larswm, and hence I think it is time people stop comparing
> wmii to larswm all the time. Wmii has introduced some new concepts
> that are far more powerful than what larswm does, and trying to
> larswm-ize them doesn't do them right.
Agreed. But maximizing my main working matter had just been made
much easier with larswm. And wmii can do this and even more. Still
I like to see this idea supported. I found myself with lots of
maximized windows while using WIMPy wms before I came across
larswm and later wmi(i). They gave me a better overview of my passive
clients why still switching the active client (with my "work focus" on)
easily (in WIMPy wms this involved manual move and resizing).
Nevertheless, wmii gives me more flexibility to arrange my work
(in other ways) than larswm did. The actual way of working (single
maximized client, multiple tiled clients, ...) just depends on the
task. I will never do all things the same way and therefore I like
to keep the flexibility.

But maybe we should just delay this discussion for some time as
Anselm suggested...

Received on Fri May 05 2006 - 11:09:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:04:20 UTC