When comparing AROW vs dwm, the Slant community recommends AROW for most people. In the question“What is the best window manager for Mac?” AROW is ranked 22nd while dwm is ranked 25th. The most important reason people chose AROW is:
If you use external monitors, the app is useful. It also supports retina screen without problems.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Support for multiple monitors
If you use external monitors, the app is useful. It also supports retina screen without problems.
Pro Customizable options
You can customize the app in Option, for example, where you can change the appearance of the preview outline, adjust the width of the recognition areas, and set keyboard hotkeys for quick window snapping.
Pro Define OS X window buttons
AROW enables you to change the actions of OS X’s window buttons. It only requires either a right or a left-click for the action to take place.
Pro Smart Panel to move and resize windows
The customizable grid panel is very intuitive and is an accurate way to resize and move windows. Simply drag your mouse across its grid, the window will be moved, and resize to the exact position instantly.
Pro Easy ways to snap windows
Simply drag windows to the edges of your Mac’s screen. Once the cursor reaches the screen’s edge, the window will automatically move and resize to fill exactly half or quarter of the screen.
Pro Simple and small
Dwm is a low-resource window manager that is entirely simplistic in design.
Pro Encourages user modification
Dwm is part of the suckless suite of tools, and encourages users to extend and configure it by modifying the code itself. To this end, dwm is kept under 2000 SLOC, and is an exemplar of clean, readable code (C). This, while giving users all the flexibility they could ask for, also makes dwm as lightweight as possible, and means that users have a full understanding of how it works.
Pro XRandR/Xinerama support
Dwm has support for XRandR and Xinerama, allowing for multi-monitor support.
Pro Many and unique patches available
Thanks to the small codebase, many users contributed patches to the suckless website. They offer unique functionality, e.g. swallow or fakefullscreen, that is not seen in many other WMs.
Pro Sane defaults
Uses Master&Stack layout by default.
Pro Minimalist
Small and easy to digest source for those who want to patch it.
Pro Easy to configure
Configuring dwm is straight-forward thanks to its config.h file (though it will have to be rebuilt for the effects to take place).
Pro Fast
Feels even faster than others minimal window manager.
Pro Very customizable
The clean code and the patches allow us to configure dwm to be exactly what we want.
Pro Default keybindings and functionality are very useful and well thought-out
An example of this is the application of alt-tab to switch between two tags.
Pro No glitches
Imagine a window manager that works perfectly in every situation. No glitches, no delays, no slow downs, no focus problems. Even the best window managers out there have glitches but dwm. Dwm works flawless.
Pro Useful and informative status bar
The dwm status bar can be set to display all kinds of useful information, such as volume level, wifi signal strength, and battery notification.
Pro Application grouping with tags
Dwm's design paradigm is to use tags to group clients (applications) that can then be pulled into a view (workspace); this allows you to view multiple clients at once and to assign or reassign those tags and their related views on the fly.
Contrary to most other window managers, when you view a tag you are not ‘visiting’ a workspace: you are pulling the tagged windows into a single workspace.
Combined with rules in the config.h
, this makes for a flexible and responsive means to manage your workflow.
Cons
Con Trouble with GUI
Yosemite (10.10.5) it works but it's impossible to open the application GUI.
Con No runtime config file
There is no config file that can be edited after the window manager is compiled: all changes need to be made prior to compiling.
Con By developers, for developers
Basic knowledge of C language, general programming, and compilation are all required.
Con The patch system breaks the code
To add features one has to patch the original code. That maybe easy to do with only one patch, but things can go down hill after 3+ patches, specially for those who don't know how to code on C.
Con More latency
It uses Xlib instead of XCB.
Con X11 only
X11 is outdated and insecure, there are Wayland clones such as Velox and dwl, but dwm still takes the cake.