A window manager is software that manages the windows that applications bring up. For example, when you start an application, there will be a window manager running in the background, responsible for the placement and appearance of windows.
It is important not to confuse a window manager with a desktop environment. A desktop environment typically consists of icons, windows, toolbars, folders, wallpapers, and desktop widgets. They provide a collection of libraries and applications made to operate cohesively together. A desktop environment contains its own window manager.
There are a few different types of window managers. This article focuses on stacking window managers which are also known as floating window managers. This is a type of window manager that draws all windows in a specific order, allowing them to overlap, using a technique called painter’s algorithm. All window managers that allow the overlapping of windows but are not compositing window managers are considered stacking window managers, although they can use different methods.
Stacking window managers allow windows to overlap by drawing them one at a time. Stacking, or repainting (in reference to painter’s algorithm) refers to the rendering of each window as an image, painted directly over the desktop, and over any other windows that might already have been drawn, effectively erasing the areas that are covered. The process usually starts with the desktop, and proceeds by drawing each window and any child windows from back to front, until finally the foreground window is drawn.
Our verdict is captured in a legendary LinuxLinks-style ratings chart. All of the window managers featured here are free and open source software.
Click the links in the table below to learn more about each window manager.
| Stacking Window Managers | |
|---|---|
| Openbox | Standards compliant, fast, light-weight, extensible window manager |
| KWin | Window manager for the KDE Plasma Desktop |
| Mutter | Wayland display server and X11 window manager and compositor library |
| FVWM | Powerful ICCCM-compliant multiple virtual desktop window manager |
| berry | Healthy, bite-sized window manager |
| xfwm | Part of the Xfce desktop environment |
| Compiz | OpenGL window and compositing manager |
| Worm | Tiny, dynamic, tag-based window manager |
| Window Maker | NeXTSTEP-like window manager |
| sowm | Itsy bitsy floating window manager |
| JWM | Joe’s Window Manager |
| Gala | Designed by elementary for use with Pantheon |
| Fluxbox | Highly configurable and low resource |
| cwm | OpenBSD fork of calmwn, a clean and lightweight window manager |
| IceWM | Win95-OS/2-Motif-like window manager |
| Blackbox | Similar to the NeXT interface and Window Maker |
| Enlightenment | Focuses on pushing the limits of existing technologies |
| PekWM | Originally based on the aewm++ window manager |
| evilwm | Maximises screen real estate and provides good keyboard control |
| Marco | MATE default window manager |
| 2bwm | Offers 2 borders, and written over the XCB library |
| Sawfish | Extensible window manager using an Emacs Lisp-like scripting language |
This article has been revamped in line with our recent announcement.
 Read our complete collection of recommended free and open source software. Our curated compilation covers all categories of software. The software collection forms part of our series of informative articles for Linux enthusiasts. There are hundreds of in-depth reviews, open source alternatives to proprietary software from large corporations like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, IBM, Cisco, Oracle, and Autodesk. There are also fun things to try, hardware, free programming books and tutorials, and much more. |
The mcwm window manager should definitely be in this list. I tried sowm, which works fine, but I like mcwm even better.
No it shouldn’t. Just because you like it doesn’t mean it should be included. I wouldn’t include it for lots of reasons. For example, the project is essentially abandoned and offers nothing different to that provided by the other minimalist window managers.
Perhaps not, and yes it is abondoned. However, if an application works well for me I usually am not too concerned about it – the code is set and not likely to be updated, which means that the application will probably continue working well.
I installed sowm and berry as well. Sowm worked very well… berry was OK too. I just liked mcwm for it’s extreme ease of configuration plus it provided window borders out of the box.
I only suggested it as I thought someone else with priorities similar to mine might be looking for a the same type of window manager and would enjoy taking mcwm for a test drive.
Given that you didn’t originally state what your priorities were, how was anyone to judge whether the window manager might be remotely suitable for them? After all, there’s tons of abandoned window managers out there that probably a few people still use and like. But they are really like fingerprints on an abandoned handrail.
Earl Parker II, thanks for your suggestion about mcwm. It’s genuinely appreciated.
For our Group Tests like this one, we generally do not include software that’s no longer maintained and hasn’t seen a release in many years. This is often because the software might cause security issues, it’s likely to break at some point, could cause compatibility issues, or even fail to run/compile on many distros. There are always exceptions of course. In the case of mcwm, we did evaluate this window manager; it’s in the Arch User Repository and builds cleanly. However, on balance, given that its last release was in 2013 and there are better alternatives out there, it was omitted from the Group Test.
The purpose of our Group Tests is not to capture every single program. Instead, it’s to highlight what we consider to be the best in the field. Obviously, that’s an opinion. But it’s an expert and impartial opinion. Of course, we are human and omissions can occur. But we don’t think that’s happened on this occasion.
Going forwards, one thing we could do is mention other programs and explain why they didn’t quite make it. There’s lots of great open source software abandoned by their original developer(s) crying out for someone to take on the project. Maybe that would stimulate forgotten but useful projects.
Why not more Wayland DE:s
Because this is an article about window managers, not desktop environments. Search for desktop environments on the site and you’ll find our recommendations.
those -box ones are really great, minimal and blazing fast and highly customizable, especially when Crunchbang was very popular, that was the time when Openbox was the real star.