Slashdot Mirror
Lightweight Window Managers?
bcrowell asks: "We have an old Intel machine (166 Mhz pentium, 32 Mb), previously used only for playing Civilization, on which I've now got Mandrake running. The problem is, it doesn't seem possible to run KDE in this amount of memory. I've heard about Linux being a good way to run serious software gracefully on older hardware, but not having a GUI is pretty limiting, unless you just want a server. Has anyone used a more lightweight window manager that they could recommend? Are there ways of configuring X, KDE, or GNOME so as to cut down on the memory requirements?" Yes, a simple browse of Freshmeat will net you loads of answers, but I'm sure the submittor would appreciate some of your experiences with the numerous choices of WMs, out there.
XFCE... oh yes, XFCE. You can use GNOME stuff if you want, but it isn't neccesary. It is especially freindly to laptops and older low-Pentium-class hardware. I use it on high-end systems, too.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Aside from it looking a bit like CDE of pre-gnome Solaris fame, its actually a nice little wm. Totally configurable, fast as hell, small footprint, everything you could want or need. Even has its own desktop background and sound apps. I actually use this on one of my high-end Dell machines @ work, and haven't had a single problem with it.
www.xfce.org is where its at!
First, I would recommend taking a look at blackbox - it's lightweight enough to run on quite a few lower-end machines nicely. Or maybe ion, which is decent for some types of work-related activities.
And then I would say that a lot of larger desktop environments (gnome/kde/enlightenment/etc) can probably be configured to run slower systems. most of the development work on E (before 0.14), for example, was done on a p120 and a p133. So I wouldn't completely discount these systems if you're used to them - you can probably make them run happily by tweaking configurations in them. Of course, you may not be interested in that, in which case I'd stick with something like ion or blackbox.
Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
Some Random UI Hacker
I run Afterstep and Mandrake 7.2 (came with that version, don't know why they took it off newer versions) on a 32mb machine at home. Afterstep has a very small footprint. If you are running a different version of Mandrake you'll have to grab the code from Afterstep.org (which seems to be dead in the water as I write this)
Nice features over twm : Virtual desktops, pixmap `themes' if you want that kind of stuff. Probably others, but I'm a bit of a minimalist so I don't go for WM fluff.
Obligatory links :
WindowMaker runs fine on my 486, as will blackbox, AfterStep, bare Sawfish and the rest. Depending on what you want to do, you may want to try an older distribution instead -- Redhat 5.2 or something like that. Everything in it will be a lot lighter weight so it will be easier than trying to cut a recent distro down to size. KDE 1.x will run faster on that box than KDE 2 does on a 800 MHz system. You can still update all the console stuff to new versions with no loss of performance.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
my friend had a pentium 100 with 16 megs of ram (recently upgraded to 32) and he had mandrake running on it quite well, for a while he used KDE but he switched to icewm and it seemed to work quite well, it ran at a decent res. and color setting unlike kde. It took me a while to get used to all the right clicking but all in all it was a decent wm
I'll make an obvious recommendation here - go pick up some used RAM at a local computer show or on ebay. RAM is ridiculously cheap right now (you could probably get four 16 meg 72-pin EDO chips for under $20), and you'll have a much better time running KDE/Gnome/etc on 64 megs.
Linux in console mode will run great on almost anything, but GUIs eat a lot of CPU/RAM. FWIW, I built my mother-in-law a P100 w/ 32 MB RAM and Mandrake 7.2 from spare parts many months ago. The system used a lot of swap, and I ended up upgrading her to 64 MB, but it otherwise works fine (if you don't mind a little tedious boot time - about 60 seconds). It's no Quake machine, but it allows her to surf the web, write e-mail, and use KOffice without any complaints.
I use wmx on a laptop with similar resource constraints; I like it a lot for that application because of the inovative way it handles window labels: instead of a title bar at the top, there is a tab on the left, which is more efficient on a little 10 inch screen.
It had good key binding to reduce mousage, which is particularly helpful with an anoying little pointing stick, but which is becoming habit forming on my desktoip as well, and supports virtual desktops.
I also occasionally use aewm, which is also nice, configurable, and somewhat more aesthetically pleasing, in a less-is-beautiful sort of a way.
It's kind of lame, but I had a little more trouble configuring it, which initially steered me to wmx, but that should not influence you at all: I'm a knucklehead.
I believe that because of the window tabs, wmx excercises the X server more (shaped windows or something), but that has never been noticeable for me.
-------------------------
A person of moderate zeal
WindowMaker is very nice, it has a small footprint and has a very intuitive (IMO) NeXT style interface.
I have been using it for quite some time, I always keep coming back to it. Every now and then I venture out and try a new WM but WindowMaker I think is really small and fast.
It is compatible with GNOME & KDE as well which is nice. So you can run QT & GTK apps as well. For instance, I use that to keep konqueror around w/o running the full desktop
Actually, I'm not sure how much of KDE starts running when you start konqueror, I know the DCOP service starts and some the other stuff, but I haven't bothered to look any more closely than that. But as far as being a nice lightwieght WM, I think WindowMaker is good.
I think this discussion was on slashdot a month ago, I'd post the link but I'm tired :)
-- Eric
My machine is a bit faster, so I took the luxury of downloading about a dozen window managers from Freshmeat, CAREFULLY read their instructions and ./configure options, built and tested them all. I'm now using oroborus on all three boxes. Its fast, its light, its easy to configure. It requires two programs, one for the wm, one for the menu. Compile it with --enable-gnome=off --disable-debug, and well you get the idea. I'm no guru, but I've found that if I have the gnome libs installed, and programs, ie oroborus, xchat or almost anything else, compiled to enable gnome support run much slower. Compiling programs that optionally use gnome to not use gnome support speeds up almost everything.
./configure --help whenever you build packages, especially for old/lightweight machines.
s /
/*---trying not to get flamed----*/
There is nothing wrong with Gnome, its just a tradeoff between looks and speed. I happen to go for speed in this case.
Read all the docs, and the output of
here's the oroborus url
http://www.kensden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Oroboru
/* wow, I was rather redundant there... */
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
Okay, the first thing you need to do is understand the difference between a Window Manager, and a Desktop Environment.
Gnome and KDE are desktop environments. They run on top of X Windows, providing a number of extra services and features, but they still rely on a Window Manager to handle basic window appearance, changes, etc. XFCE is kind of a hybrid choice. It is a Desktop Environment, like Gnome/KDE, and thus provides many similar features, but it was designed to be lightweight and small. Thus, it falls somewhere in the middle between running just a Window Manager, and running one of the "heavyweight" Desktop Environements. It generally doesn't provide as many features as Gnome or KDE, but it runs faster than either. It requires more resources than a simple Window Manager, but it also provides more features.
If you want something really lightweight, what you need to do is to stop running Gnome or KDE. Now, note, if you have the Gnome/KDE libraries installed, you can still run Gnome and KDE applicatoins, even when that Desktop Environement isn't running.
As far as lightweight Window Managers, when Gnome/KDE are not running, almost any basic Window Manager will feel lightweight by comparison. Personaly, I like Sawfish, for it's customization abilities, and scriptability. However, WindowMaker, AfterStep, fvwm2, BlackBox, etc, will all perform fine on that machine.
Topher
Windowmaker is a little better, but fvwm is probably going to be your quickest bet. There is also blackbox and if you install lestiff you can use mwm. I have also heard that there is a window manager that does not allow windows to draw over each other, but forget its name. Many bsders I used to work with loved it as it was quick and easy.
Only 'flamers' flame!
You're probably thinking of lwm. In the description of the various X resources that lwm understands, the author says, "In addition to these ample facilities, there exists a powerful configuration tool called gcc."
It's a great window manager, although I've moved to Ion, because I hate having to use the mouse.
lwm : http://www.boognish.org.uk/enh/lwm/
ion : http://www.students.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
I might be a freak, but I use BlackBox on all my computers. From a dual Celeron 466Mhz w/512Mb RAM to a k6 200Mhz w/32Mb RAM. And on my next box, it's still going to be BB.
It is extremely light wight, extremely simple to configure (I won't call it easy, because it would sound too much like other marketing campaigns). It also accepts WindowMaker and AfterStep dock apps, has a few of its own (pager, etc). This allows you to gain some of the functionality of gnome or kde monitors, etc, without the huge memory footprint.
It is rock solid. In the year that I have been using it, it has never crashed on me. Mozilla, xmms, quake3, rtcf, and plenty other apps managed to crash my X, but never BB.
So give it a try, you might like it.
Another wm I used to use (for 3 years actually) was WindowMaker. It has most of the qualities BlackBox has, but it is a bit bigger memory-wise. And it has a way of placing icons around the border of the desktop that strarted bugging me, and I could never get rid of them. But that wasn't the main reason I switched. I guess after 3 years, I got bored with the same look, and I wanted something different...
But give it a try too, and pick the best one you like.
Some info here, which points to, ironically enough, here.
The two best lightweight window managers are lwm and ion. lwm is like an even lighterweight twm; you can start xterms, move windows, close windows, and make windows disappear into a right-click menu. That's it; that's all it does. As an added bonus, the binary is something like 26k on an x86 FreeBSD box.
ion is totally different; it takes over your entire screen, which is very nice for limited resolutions where you don't want pixels wasted on borders, widgets, etc.; it's controllable completely through the keyboard; it looks nothing like any other window manager (in my eyes, a big benefit, as all other window managers are broken); however, it's also quite light on the system.
I also hear good things about wm2 and wmx, but I can't stand the little tiny title bar on the side, so I don't use 'em.
Peace,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
This really depends on what you intend to do inside that window manager. I recently put Debian 2.2 r4 stable on a 32 MB P-120 box. I have Gnome launching under Windowmaker. Runs great. If I try to run something big under it, say, Mozilla, the disk swapping starts immediately and a page load of Slashdot takes 30 seconds or so via cable modem. Launching a second session of Mozilla or accessing the mail client will leave me with a 3-5 minute wait just to bring the window up. I avoid this by using Balsa for mail, and running Mozilla by itself when I want to browse the web. Certainly I could alleaviate some of the waiting by going with a less resource-hungry browser.
In short, A decent window manager like Windomaker can run Gnome on a resource-limited box; you just have to stick to smaller applications and/or avoid multitasking on the desktop if you're going to run an advanced window manager or desktop environment.
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
Dude!! wm2 RULES!!
It's chief bug is that "it has too many features" (from the manpage)
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Memory is very cheap these days.
invest about $25.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I use WindowMaker daily on my Solaris 2.8 machine. No more CDE, no BrokenWindows, no GNOME, that's for sure.
:-)
:-)
Just plain old WM. I have almost all the features turned off -- all I want is a root menu and the ability to change the background image.
And lots and lots and lots of xterms.
Oh, the other feature I like is the windowshade-like function (double-click on the title bar and it rolls up).
Excellent window manager.
Of course, to each their own. I've also used fvwm and twm on occasion.
Heck, I used to use a WPS replacement on OS/2 called tmenu.
The only thing I want out of my window manager is to give me a menu and go away. Simplicity is key.
--DM
p.s. And that's got NOTHING to do with lightweight hardware. I have a Sun Ultra 60 on my desktop (dual 450mhz procs, 1gb RAM). Massive overkill.