Hello,
Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.
I think the versions of kde and gnome with be to hefty for it.
thank you.

On Monday 03 October 2005 04:22, tomas stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /alt.os.linux.gentoo...:/

> Hello,
> Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.
> I think the versions of kde and gnome with be to hefty for it.
> thank you.

You could try FluxBox, BlackBox or IceWM. TWM is also quite
lightweight. ;-)

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user # 223157)

Aragorn wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2005 04:22, tomas stood up and spoke the following
> words to the masses in /alt.os.linux.gentoo...:/
>
>
>>Hello,
>>Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.
>>I think the versions of kde and gnome with be to hefty for it.
>>thank you.
>
>
> You could try FluxBox, BlackBox or IceWM. TWM is also quite
> lightweight. ;-)
>
Here is another vote for FluxBox, as it has served me well since KDE became too
bloated!

Regards,

Alunduil

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 03:33:54 -0500, Alunduil wrote:

> Aragorn wrote:
>> On Monday 03 October 2005 04:22, tomas stood up and spoke the following
>> words to the masses in /alt.os.linux.gentoo...:/
>>
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.
>>>I think the versions of kde and gnome with be to hefty for it.

No one mentions the other downside to KDE and Gnome: the sheer amount of
time it takes to find out how they work.

>> You could try FluxBox, BlackBox or IceWM.

I like IceWM in terms of performance and lack of bloat, but it sometimes
bothers me how much it looks like Windows 95....

>> TWM is also quite lightweight. ;-)

I suspect that objective tests would show that TWM users are the most
productive. Little or no messing about with menus. Open an xterm and
type "firefox &" and there you go. It doesn't get lighter weight or
easier to learn than that.

> Here is another vote for FluxBox, as it has served me well since KDE became too
> bloated!

<aol>
I use Fluxbox on several older machines. It's a dream on my 133MHz
pentium :-)
</aol>

If the machine is *slightly* more powerful than that, consider
Enlightenment - although there's a lot to learn about in there too.
--
mark south: world citizen, net denizen
echo znexfbhgu2000@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2005-10-03, tomas <tomas@linux.site> wrote:
> Hello,
> Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.
> I think the versions of kde and gnome with be to hefty for it.
> thank you.

Enlightenment - I use it on everything from a p266 to an athlon 3200xp.

If E doesn't do it for ya, fluxbox or blackbox.

Some folks like WindowMaker but it's not exactly for me.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDQST67XWNuvsOTiYRAktUAJ9NmghoPFAoN6YuVTlLHV 9fsseP+ACgm3nl
TWAgJwvCpsMiNkLFbQCPpSw=
=foAV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:22:02 +1300, tomas wrote:

> Hello,
> Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.
> I think the versions of kde and gnome with be to hefty for it.
> thank you.

If you want ultra-minimal try amiwm. It's absolutely basic as it is
designed to look like an old Amiga desktop.
You don't get any more minimal than this one!

tomas wrote:
> Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.

IMHO the best is evilwm because it is not just minimal but also has nice
feature that there are no 'windows bars' ususaly limitting vertical
*usable* space to some junk icons and psuedo-infos.
It is very vital on small displays, like 15 inch, working with 800x600
definition.

As you see there is really the whole multitude of *lightweight* WMs!

The much bigger problem is to find *equally* lightweight: *webrowser* &
*mail* / *news* client!

Mozilla is actually very heavy, dillo is extremely poor with its draconic
limitations (even no national charcters), sylpheed seems rather clumsy...

It looks like this slot of the market is rather monopolized:
the only *sincere* products are: Mozilla (with mutations like Thunderbird or
Firefox), Konqueror (Kmail & KNode) and Opera.

All The Three are very hefty and they distroy the whole effect that would
come from a lightweight WM

--
S

S wrote:

> dillo is extremely poor with its draconic
> limitations (even no national charcters)

dillo has very *draconian* limitations (apology for the mistake) and it does
not support any national encodings
what makes it practically unusable to view www pages written in other
languages then English.

Maybe someone knows how to workaround that specific limitation?

"lightweight" means to me the elimination of all the fancy features
(that usually hijack the most resources, why?)
but instead investing into the really *crucial* functionalities!

--
S

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:22:02 +1300, tomas wrote:

> Hello,
> Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.
> I think the versions of kde and gnome with be to hefty for it.
> thank you.

Much ado about enlightenment right now - see the Elive live CD. My
personal preference is XFCE.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:15:44 +0200, S wrote:

> tomas wrote:
>> Could someone recommend a small windows manager for my old thinkpad.
>
> IMHO the best is evilwm because it is not just minimal but also has nice
> feature that there are no 'windows bars' ususaly limitting vertical
> *usable* space to some junk icons and psuedo-infos.
> It is very vital on small displays, like 15 inch, working with 800x600
> definition.

I might look at that myself.

> As you see there is really the whole multitude of *lightweight* WMs!

Indeed. And that's great. It just takes some trying to see what is worth
liking.

> The much bigger problem is to find *equally* lightweight: *webrowser* &
> *mail* / *news* client!

Aye, there's the rub. Lightweight WM is only the first step.

Mail and news are easier than browser: use xterms and run slrn or tin for
news, mutt or pine for email. Or even old-style mailx, with $EDITOR set
to vi or emacs as preferred.

> Mozilla is actually very heavy,

And Firefox needs to go on a diet, too. Fat slob.

> dillo is extremely poor with its
> draconic limitations (even no national charcters), sylpheed seems rather
> clumsy...

Sylpheed is quite powerful, but hasn't yet stabilised - it's not flaky so
much as the developers keep changing how stuff works.

I'm a big fan of Dillo for just reading web documents, it's like filling
your machine with rocket fuel when you're used to other browsers.

> It looks like this slot of the market is rather monopolized: the only
> *sincere* products are: Mozilla (with mutations like Thunderbird or
> Firefox), Konqueror (Kmail & KNode) and Opera.

Opera runs the best of all those on lightweight hardware.

You left Epiphany off the list, which is the Gnome gecko-based browser.
It has very few features and works a lot like Safari on the Mac does.

> All The Three are very hefty and they distroy the whole effect that
> would come from a lightweight WM

New suggested motto: "Let's lose the FAT!" :-)
--
mark south: world citizen, net denizen
echo znexfbhgu2000@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m