I'm pretty sure WM will catch up to high DPI at some point, given its heritage and still active maintenance.

BUT meanwhihc a few glitches show up: WPrefs.app does not like "large" fonts ... the windows remain small, and it is hardly usable on modern displays with high screen resolution.

Similarly the icon size/layout i still designed for older displays with something close to 75dpi:

The number of apps that are not dockable appears to be increasing. And the old "dockit" wrapper seems to have gone decades ago.

https://www.windowmaker.org/
https://www.dockapps.net/
https://wmlive.sourceforge.net/

but it doesn't raise the different windows.
What am I missing?
The three windows I use most are named in WindowRing{}.
The other thing that I haven't managed to get a handle on is as stultumanto mentioned the text insertion follows the mouse. NoTitleFocus, if I understand the docs, says it should prevent the keyboard input from changing just because the mouse cursor moves into the window, yet that isn't how it seems to work.
AutoRelativeResize doesn't work for me. Perhaps you can explain how to make that work too.

Thanks and be well,
Mike

I've been using cwm long enough that some of its quirks are starting to wear on me. It does this annoying thing where new windows will grab the pointer and center it over themselves. There doesn't appear to be any way to change this behavior, at least, I couldn't find anything about it in the documentation. No other WMs I tried do this, it's really weird.

I also tried twm and ctwm, but I could not figure out how to keep focus from following the pointer. There's a program list called AutoRaise in the configuration file, but whether I put a program in it or not, it doesn't seem to do anything.

9wm, cwm, dwm, evilwm, flwm, lwm and windowlab . . . .
I was wondering if anyone here had tried any of those and liked them.

It seems the tread has spiraled away from the question.  I have tried all of these in the past, but it's been awhile. From my experience I have to agree with @Camtaf . Not only are the listed WMs very basic, they fail to be take the crown for being lightweight. In opinion you can't beat JWM. I've not seen any WM as lightweight, but when configured properly is very nice.

thunar is recommended for full functionality

No, you're wrong. Thunar is not a recommended package. It is an essential package…I mean when you install xfce4. After installation, you can use another file browser, but thunar is required.

Why do you say that? The gitlab shows commits as recent as two weeks ago.
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/twm

I checked in aptitiude, and installing XFCE4 on my system would require downloading 500 MB of new files. It depends on PulseAudio and a whole bunch of other things I don't have installed.

That's because xfce4 itself is a metapackage, so of course it's going to install everything under the sun.

You'd want a "minimal" Xfce install with the following command (feel free to adjust to your own liking with more or less packages):

sudo apt install xfce4-terminal xfce4-session xfce4-settings xfwm4 xfdesktop4 xfce4-panel xfce4-power-manager thunar --no-install-recommends

In fact, you could do away with xfwm4 and just use something like openbox, i3wm, or fvwm in its place. Hell, even just keep xfce4-panel and use feh or xwallpaper for setting your desktop wallpaper without the need for xfdesktop4. thunar is recommended for full functionality, but you could swap it out for rox-filer or spacefm (not the icky GTK3 build, of course) and still use those for a "desktop" UI.

The point is that Xfce is what you make of it, and it can work for various use cases.

Not sure whats wrong with XFCE4

I wouldn't say there's anything's wrong with it, but it's in an entirely different class from the other WMs being discussed here. It's not so much a window manager as a full-blown desktop environment. I checked in aptitiude, and installing XFCE4 on my system would require downloading 500 MB of new files. It depends on PulseAudio and a whole bunch of other things I don't have installed. By contrast, cwm is less than 200 KB, and twm, if you include the menu package, is less than 2 MB. They don't depend on anything that's not already installed on my (very basic) system.

I'm not saying that makes them better, it's just a different way of doing things. It certainly makes them more suitable for running on older hardware with marginal specs. I have Devuan running on one machine that's 15 years old, with a 1.4 GHz processor, and it's perfectly usable. I'm pretty sure it would chug with XFCE, and Gnome or KDE would almost certainly be unusable.

https://invidious.protokolla.fi/watch?v=tCcNGAivHLM

P.S.

Twm is a very old wm and this unmaintained.