[mmgutz]

Genuine curiousity, in what ways is it significantly better?

I'm a die hard i3 user and if there's a better tiling window manager I would switch. Can you hide all window chrome like titlebar, borders, etc to maximize pixels? How about managing window container groups? Can you cycle between different layouts, eg tabbed, split, stacked like in i3. Can you move windows to a specific desktop/monitor with keyboard? Is auto splitting and arrangement supported like bspwm or i3?

I've tried all tiling window managers and I settled on i3.

[qbasic_forever]

No it doesn't have nearly those features as far as I know.

However, it has an on and off button right in the top bar. And it has a couple click way to add a window as an exception. So you can have all your terminals, browsers, etc. tiled and perfect... but when a random little tool, dialog, etc. smashes in and ruins and everything it's easy to make it float above as an exception. And if that isn't working you just flip it off and deal with the annoying program, then flip it back on.

I like it a lot. I don't come from a background of i3 or power usage of tiling WMs (to be honest I really loved paper WM, another cool gnome tiling-like extension). But pop's tiling manager seems like the perfect balance of good for users that want tiling but don't want to go all in on it.

[michaelmrose]

The mechanism to add an exception in i3 is called for_window but virtually all utility windows will already float automatically in i3.

[square_usual]

As another i3 user, Pop shell isn't as good as i3 IMO. In particular, I felt their stacking option was half-backed when I tried it, which was when it came out. The advantage is that it has much better support for stuff Gnome comes with out of the box, which you might have to configure for yourself in i3. At the end of the day, if you are happy with your i3 setup, I see no reason to switch to Pop Shell.