Why not just rely on tmux panes?

It'd prevent me using the Vim clipboard ('registers') between files. That's bad enough. It'd also prevent me using Vim macros to easily shuttle data between files.

I may also want to ctrl-z Vim to run a few quick commands before resuming Vim with fg. Using tmux panes, I'd only get a small window to run those few commands, which doesn't reflect my intent. (Yes, I could use another tmux window for this, but I like this way.)

I suspect it would also mean more keystrokes.

Amp has native clipboard integration, so content will carry between different instances. Configuring the register => clipboard was something I personally disliked when configuring Vim.

Amp also supports suspending (hit "z" in normal mode) as I use that workflow all the time. As for the small window issue, you can "zoom" a tmux panel with <leader>-z. I get that this is less than ideal if you're used to the suspend action collapsing all panes by default (and expanding them on resume). Workflows are tricky; to each their own, I guess! :)

> Amp has native clipboard integration, so content will carry between different instances

By "native" does that mean an X-server's clipboard? So when you're running it on a machine that has no X-server running (a typical server), there is no clipboard?

Amp has an internal clipboard that it synchronizes to an external/native equivalent, if available. You'd still be able to copy/paste within a single Amp process, but you would lose the ability to do the same between separate processes.

Right, so in the context of this discussion, tmux panes are not a good substitute for vim windows, since you wouldn't be able to copy-paste between them unless what you were copying fit in a single pane-full.

Yes, that's correct. :)

In that scenario, I would compromise by opening both files in the same Amp process and switch between them, but that's not the same as seeing both at the same time.

Not everybody uses tmux for one.