the explanation on the rat poison page http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/ probably says everything about that.
tilers are not for decoration, they are for functionality and performance. there is an option to replace xfwm with xmonad in xfce to get good tiling and save the looks, but I didn't have time to try it. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4722201 (btw that x-tile app is crap)
i realise appearance isn't everything, but if you had the choice of dating two people, otherwise equal, one who was ugly and the other cute, what would you choose?
i also realise i may be coming across as a troll (that wasn't my intention, but your reply seemed to wilfully ignore what i asked). i really am interested in what the advantages of one of these would be (since if the reason is convincing i would try one).
I answered what I knew the answer for. I have no idea about kde and its apps, never used it, as I said, I use Xfce. And on my laptop I use Openbox. On both of them I too switch between desktops/windows with my keyboard. I tried AwesomeWM once for a moment (very hyped recently), but pure tile seems too crazy for me and by their nature those wms are very raw out of the box (read: nothing there. DIY).
> i'm sorry, but that doesn't explain why you'd want to use one, unless you have a really slow machine.
It's one of those things where there isn't one true answer, it's just a matter of preference - good looking 'desktop metaphor' or highly script-customizable tiles. There should probably be some religious battles about it in the deep meanders of the interwebs. The most flagship usage of decent tilers is those sysadmin dudes with 40 terminals on 5 monitors rotating them all around between a dozen of workspaces like mad. I use 4 to 7 workspaces tops on a single monitor in xfce and openbox, while f.ex. awesomewm sets default workspaces to 9, I think that says pretty much about the workflow of the tiling userbase.
tldr: idk, whatever floats your boat.