|WikiProject Software / Computing||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
This article should be merger with X window manager as they both serve the same purpose. This article covers the same subject and there is no real need for it. The Windows specific sections of this article could be put into a new section in the X window manager article named something like "Other Platform Window Managers". bobbo (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree (Update). I have updated this article to contain more general information about window managers. Although in principle I agree that X window managers is more detailed, many of the articles that link to this article have nothing in particular to do with x windows or linux/UNIX and therefore if it is to be merged into something it should be the Windowing system or another more general article for sure. That is my expert opinion as an information technology professional. Although having an up to date page on window managers is in my opinion very valuable as a way to tie windowing systems, X window managers, compositing window managers (which windows and mac also contain), as well as almost every other platform historical or current which has used windows. It's a nice way to tie it all up in a nice package. I also strongly disagree with the opening comment here. The article, properly written should most certainly not cover the "same subject" and there should be a read need for it. Everyone does not use X window managers. Almost everyone uses a window manager. It's something 90% of people use vs. a fraction of people for X window managers. Putting a section in window manager for X window managers would make sense, since X window managers are window managers. However putting a section in X window managers for window managers would not make sense, since all window managers are not X window managers. Andy16666 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. Although I agree with all the reasons proposed by the others here, all window managers are not X window managers, and every graphical operating system has at least one. I think you need a general window manager article, unfortunately you also need someone to write one. I think I just found myself a job. :-P Andy16666 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. This article looks very out-of-date, while X window manager looks much more current. MoraSique (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with merging the x11 stuff, per nom and MoraSique. Disagree with nom regarding non-x11 stuff, as it's off-topic there. I think Windowing system would be a better place for it (could expand the "other" sentence into a separate subsection about MSWindows platforms). DMacks (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. As all but AfterSTEP are window managers for the X11 system, they really should be added to said article, either that or this article should be expanded. As for AfterSTEP, are there any appropriate places to mention it? There aren't too many other window managers for Windows, about the only one I can think of (if it even counts) is 98lite. I agree that having a subsection about window managers on other platforms in the middle of the X11 article seems out of place. Mandanthe1 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. The term "window manager" historically was largely specific to the X11 architecture. IIRC, prior to Vista, MS Windows did not have any component specifically refered to as a window manager in the documentation, and thus the XP discussion is probably OR. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Are docks really part of window managers?
The vast majority of X window managers do not include taskbars, docks or desktop icons. Also, in my opinion these parts really have nothing to do with a window manager's main task: managing windows (i.e drawing frames, allowing repositioning of windows etc.). Should these features really be mentioned as being part of window mangers in general?
- Agreed. While these features may come with various window manager software, they are not features of a "window manager", just as card games are not a feature of an "operating system" despite their inclusion in Microsoft Windows. Edit. —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No Mention of Quartz Compositor?
This article seems to be an overview of window managers, but it fails even to mention Mac OS X's Quartz Compositor. Probably should be in there.
Too much prominence given to Amiga Workbench
Why is so much prominence and space given to Amiga workbench? This seems inappropriate to spend so much time on a now largely irrelevant window manager from a now effectively extinct OS. More prominence should be given to efforts by Xerox PARC (First GUI/Desktop), Apple (First Commercial GUI success & still relevent) and Windows (Strong in usability and the current desktop market leader).
I guess the Amiga fanboys must of have got the page. Fair enough if you still want to flog this dead horse, but keep that to your amiga forums & fan sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Need of "See also"
This article really should have a "See also" section with ninternal wikipedia references.
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). DMacks (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)