Talk:Compositing window manager

Just Updated This Aticle

I've spent a couple of day updating this article and others relating to it, and expanding them. I think I've incorporated most of the suggestions here, as well as linked the article into others like those about windows vista.

Enjoy! Andy16666 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Who was first?

The first such combination was released in January 2005, as Xfwm. This sentence needs clarification; as written, it is not true. There was a compositing manager in metacity in cvs since November 2003, it appeared in an unstable tarball release (2.7.0) by February 2004, and in a stable tarball release (2.8.0) by May 2004. It wasn't widely announced as it would only build if the Xcomposite extension was found, which most people did not have at the time. In later versions of metacity (starting with 2.8.4; ca. August 2004), the built-in compositing manager was disabled by default and had to be explicitly enabled even if the Xcomposite extension was available. There may be a difference in quality argument that could be made for Xfwm's compositing manager released in 2005 versus what Metacity had at the time, and I'm guessing that the original sentence meant to convey something along those lines? Still, a difference in quality argument seems like it would be difficult to get right. --Grndrush (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved this note from the article and left a link pointing here. I'm not familiar with these details, but I suppose we should acknowledge this hidden feature of Metacity as it was in a stable release. --TuukkaH 11:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What about KDE

KDE's window manager has had composite support for some time. It can behave a little erratically at times, but on the whole it looks nice. Transparent windows / decorations, window shadows.

Article nowadays mentions that KDE's kwin has had compositing support since KDE 4. Or was the issue about older versions? Domen (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

xfwm4: "basic support for compositing"?

"At the moment, Xfce's window manager, Xfwm, has only basic support for compositing (such as a partially transparent panel)."

Is this up to date? It was written (released?) in November 2006, before Xfce 4.4.x came out, which has several notable upgrades to the compositor. I'm not extremely familiar with compositing, but I have been able to run compositing programs such as cairo-clock with xfwm. --I80and 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm an active, current, and reasonably well-versed xfce 4.4.2 (i.e., xfwm4) user. I'm using it to make these edits, under Arch Linux using a 2.6.24 kernel (as of Apr. 2008), and NO, the above is NOT up to date. Xfce 4.4.2 has full support for partial, varying, and complete window and taskbar transparency (which can change on-the-fly as a window gains or loses focus), shadows, SVG icons, and more. IMO (I couldn't find the phraseology to convey this concisely and precisely on the main page), KDE tried to depend too much, too early, on concurrent graphics card support, which at the time was quite limited. Xfce4 does require compositing to be enabled in X, but has NO graphical hardware requirements - you could, were you patient enough, I suppose, run xfce4 with a Virge DX/VX (or RIVA TNT) 8MB video card. While this may be *strictly* true of the early KDE implementations, KDE was horribly slow with mid-range graphics hardware; I'm this moment using the same Nvidia Geforce 2 MX/400 graphics card, on the same host system, I used under KDE - not exactly 'state-of-the-art' hardware, and performance is acceptable. While I've seen no hard numbers, xfce4's *anecdotally* known as being quite efficient as a compositor. Having run both WM's on identical hardware, I CAN attest it's MUCH more efficient than the earlier KDE 3.5.(8 or 9) implementation. It seems that, at least for now, with no hardware-level graphics standards yet well-developed for compositing, the implementations which rely least on hardware support will, of course, be more efficient. --Grndrush (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has responded, and I'm 99% sure that xfwm4 has full compositing support, so I'm removing that nonsense about it having "limited support". If I'm wrong, feel free to add it back (and send me a notice on my talk page). --I80and (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Have your comments above been at least minimally addressed? --Grndrush (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional example of a circular definition

The first sentence of this page contains exactly ONE word which isn't part of the phrase it allegedly 'defines' - "unified", and while I understand what's meant by that, I bet even many technical types would have trouble with it. The rest is pretty useless. I propose replacing the phrase, "...a compositing window manager is a unified X window manager and compositing manager, enabling..." with "...a compositing window manager enables...". It's more concise AND easier to understand. I believe removing the circular reference adds much more clarity than tossing "unified" subtracts (isn't "unified" implied?). I'll put this page on my watch list, and if there are no objections in a couple of weeks, I'll make the change at that time (give or take...). --Grndrush 20:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote the above, and believe the issue is now better-addressed, I vote to remove the entire "circular definition" section if there are no objections in a couple of weeks. --Grndrush (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, i came here to find out more about this "unified", since i haven't elsewhere w/in WP. Yes it should be either explained or removed. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jerome - I just basically redid most of this page, and almost all the main page; it is far from perfect but, IMHO, a lot better than it was. Does my explanation suffice, IYO? If you can come up with a more easily-understood method of putting this info on the main page, go for it. Also, see my definition of 'unification' at the bottom of the next section (Compositing Manager). --Grndrush (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Compositing manager

The article says this is an X window manager combined with a compositing manager; what is a composting manager? It's not linked and the article with that name redirects right back here. 130.101.91.31 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to ask the same thing --Phiren (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at xcompmgr, and it calls itself a compositing manager, and it can run below any existing X window manager. This probably limits xcompmgr's features, as it doesn't know about things like multiple desktops, and window decorations, which are the jobs of the window manager. --Phiren (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that someone has removed the link, is this a good idea, should there be a page for compositing managers. (give xcompmgr a page to live on, as it doesn't live here) --Phiren (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"In the X Window System, a compositing window manager is a unified X window manager and compositing manager. The unification facilitates graphical effects that react to window management events such as appearance of new windows." This is awful: we still don't know what a compositing manager is, as mentioned above; And what's "unification"? No, it doesn't say. And i don't suppose it has to do with Unification? Someone please explain, or we'll have to trash this. Apparently whoever wrote this article hardly knows what he's talking about, as there not even a link to Compositing. Dude. Oh I added the "confusing" and "technical banners". --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for an explanation what a compositing manager is. Having a look at older versions of the window manager article show a definition. Maybe it's even better to revert the window manager article? --Abdull (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Unification" refers to the WM and the compositor working together, each on a portion of the task at hand, to provide a superior desktop experience (at least from an Eye Candy standpoint). I personally believe compositing deserves its own page - but wiki IS a democracy.  ;) Have everyone's concerns such as the above been reasonably addressed? I *don't* want to remove the section above if they haven't. I further apologize for setting a personal record of *7* new links to my talk page on one page (*cringe*), but I didn't want to step on or combine the comments of those of you who'd taken the time to post previously. Thanks for your indulgence. --Grndrush (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was rather confused as well to be redirected from Compositing Manager to this page, because a Compositing Window Manager is completely different from a Compositing Manager as the latter can be used along an existing Window Manager (such as Awesome, DWM, Window Maker...). For some users, a Compositing Manager is more useful because they can keep their existing Window Manager, supporting tiling for example. Also, I don't agree with this previous comment: "This probably limits xcompmgr's features, as it doesn't know about things like multiple desktops, and window decorations" because through EWMH and ICCCM (or more generally with X atoms) it is possible for a Compositing Manager to figure out the number of desktops and their sizes. Anyhow, the content of this page should perhaps be split up into two articles (one about Compositing Manager and the other one about Compositing Window Manager). What do you think? --Arnaud.Fontaine (talk) 10:36, 07 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite know the technical definitions, but the article or parts of it are indeed conflating the "solo" compositors/composition-managers or whatever would be the preferred term, with window managers that also have this functionality integrated with them. Things like Kwin and Compiz are the latter, whereas picom, compton, xcompmgr are the former. The former only draw shadows and transparencies and other effects or improvements upon the window-management done by some other process, whereas the "compositing window managers" do everything by themselves and, AFAIK, are not used conjointly with window-managers that do only the window-management part. 45.234.133.47 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Desktop Window Manager

DWM in Windows Vista is also a compositing window manager. It should be noted that compositing window managers do not exclusively exist in the X Window System. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.217.186 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree --SealedSun (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How does it work

How does all of this compositing work in relation to the X server, Window Manager, Applications, Protocols, AIGLX and other complexities. Are the X server commands converted into GL commands? Is the X server rendering into off screen windows that the window manager is then composition onto a hidden OpenGL window? Confused.... I think the article needs to mention some of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.33.39 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WRT Linux/X, your comments above are basically accurate. There is now an X option called "TripleBuffer" so it can have *2* off-screen hidden buffers to build the 'composite' the user sees (this is supposedly more efficient than double-buffering). System events are passed from X to the "unified" WM/compositor, to co-ordinate screen refreshes in a timely fashion, etc. --Grndrush (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dull picture

Top-right picture is dull, it is too dark. Hard to get the impression how such desktop really looks like. Maybe add some of these features: cube mirror, semi-transparent cube, nice (light!) background (maybe some featured picture from Wikipedia?), closing window with fire effect? 08:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC), Anonymous Coward

Windows Vista is completely wrong

The following paragraph is wrong. "Considering increasing OEM support for Linux, it would be logical for Microsoft to include a feature which is provided in competing software, however early showing of Microsoft Longhorn suggest that the feature was on the table before Linux and Apple delivered. [20]"

First the reference doesn't even refer (or even mention anything to do with) to what the paragraph is saying. Secondly Mac had a compositing window manager a month before Longhorn supposedly had. Also, normally in a the development life cycle, thing like this isn't added until, the very last minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.163.103 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also from Windows Areo article,

Until the release of Windows Vista Beta 1 in July 2005, little or nothing had been shown of Aero in public/leaked builds. Previous user interfaces were Plex, which was featured in Longhorn builds 3683-4029; Slate, which was featured in build 4051 and was available until build 4093; and Jade (builds 4074, 4083 and 4093, actually an early preview of Aero). Microsoft started using Aero in public builds in build 5048. The first build with full-featured Aero was build 5219. Build 5270 (released in December 2005) contained an implementation of Aero which was virtually complete, according to sources at Microsoft, though a number of stylistic changes were introduced between then and the operating system's release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.163.103 (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Plex and Slate were themes and colour schemes, and have absolutely nothing to do with whether the underlying window manager is compositing or not. Indeed, when the DWM compositing WM was first demo'd at WinHEC 2003, Longhorn still used the Windows XP theme ("Luna"). Doesn't change the fact that it was still a demo of compositing. Aero != DWM. However, it's certainly true that a lot of the Vista paragraph was complete nonsense -- I've just had to mostly rewrite it.-- simxp (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

2D compositing managers and hardware acceleration

Also, 2D compositing doesn't usually use hardware acceleration, as is the case with Metacity. This means that things like transparency may cause significant slowdown if used extensively.

That's plainly WRONG. 2D compositing managers, like Metacity or xcompmgr, depend on the "Composite" X extension which uses hardware acceleration, if available (RENDER). And you can believe me, you instantly feel if it's available or not. So they, in fact, *usually* use hardware acceleration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.236.115 (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This argument arises from confusion between "Hardware acceleration" and "3D acceleration" - 2D operations can be accelerated in hardware independent of OpenGL and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.165.152 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vista Flip 3d.png

The image Image:Vista Flip 3d.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:AmigaOS4.1b.png
• Image:Windows Aero.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GPGPU ???

1) i can't say why there is so much about GPGPU, about parallelizm and so on. Guess link tot the article on GPGPU would be more worth than this offtopic. 2) "CUDA is Nvidia's implementation and only works with certain Nvidia cards. ATI has yet to provide a publicly accessible API for their cards". Hmmm.. ATi Stream Computing is available for a few years. Ah! AIGLX !!! You're talking of Linux/BSD/etc ? Then move this into particuar OS-related section. Currenty it is just plain long, that ATi provides no API. 3) And why nothing is told on Intel, Matrox, S3 if we reay want to talk of GPGPU computing ? ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.152.146 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is a CWM?

Seriously, guys, anyone who doesn't know what a CWM is, would leave the first two paragraphs more confused than they started. Saying that a CWM is a type of WM, and then saying what a window manager is ("it manages windows!") is both circular and redundant. Define what a CWM is in the first sentence. KenThomas (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't redefine WM

"A window manager is software that draws a graphical user interface on a computer display – it positions windows, draws additional elements on windows (such as borders and title bars), and controls how windows interact with each other, and with the rest of the desktop environment." No need for that. Just say what a *Compositing window manager* is, and let users click on "Window Manager" if they want the whole megilla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.81.21 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Magnifiers

"Vector graphics, such as true-type fonts and 3D-accelerated elements, can be expanded without degradation (usually due to aliasing)." Yes, it may be true. But how is this related to window managers? They cannot access the original data. The vector information is lost after it is rendered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.120.101 (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is also my issue with this article. Either the buffers text needs to be clarified, or this one. It can't both be true. Domen (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Intro is too complicated

There seems to be a plague of people who think that "compositing" means "crazy graphical effects I don't want". I think this intro pagraph really doesn't help, due to being too complicated. How about something like this:

"A compositing window manager is a window manager which takes the graphical output of applications and merges (composites) them into a single image to be displayed on your computer, instead of depending on compositing being handled by the display server (such as X)." —Darxus (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the way applications get merged into the final graphical display is officially not called "compositing", so it needs to be more complicated than that. —Darxus (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Flipping

Do we really need three different kinds of flipping, each with a screenshot? Flip, Cover and Ring switching are so similar (in their actions), imho this could be explained with at most one screenshot. 3 July 2012, 22:12 UTC. Not a wiki editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.115.30 (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cube with 6 desktops

While it is obvious why one would assume that a cube has 6 usable desktops on it, I don't believe that by default Compiz allows you to use the top and bottom faces? Not sure whether it's worth the bother to mention/explain this, though... 173.89.19.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with stacking window managers

The comparison with stacking window managers could possibly be disambiguated a little better as it is troublesome to tell which system the section talks about without having help prior knowledge in the subject or being particularly good at discerning things. Further the list could possibly be put into prose and be removed from list form (though not entirely necessary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electracion (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

State of 'Compton'

Sub section List of standalone compositing managers has:

"Compton–a bug-fixed fork of dcompmgr, which is a fork of xcompmgr. (Not maintained since 2017.)"

But this page claims:

"End of January 2019 compton has received a major update from version 4 to 5.".

--Mortense (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)