GNOME Shell & Ubuntu Unity whats the diffrence?

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/gnome-shell-vs-ubuntu-unity-which-desktop-wins/2291

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/os...1/Ubuntu-Unity-vs-GNOME-3-Which-is-Better.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wLGWc3y22w

also try gnome shell 3


http://gnome3.org/tryit.html

please comment on difference between them if anyone know ?

 

Gnome Shell is much, much faster. Unity is somewhat easier to use (IMO). Both are bloated 3D interfaces burdened down with needless amounts of eyecandy, and both require more mousing and more keystrokes than Gnome 2 to get stuff done. They're probably great interfaces for tablets, but they're terrible for desktops, and IMHO constitute giant leaps backwards.

OTOH the fallback mode for Gnome 3 isn't half bad. Not very customizable, but much more friendly.

 

Unity has a 2D version without all the eye candy. Its the one to install on netbooks and low powered machines that simply can't support a 3D interface.

Dedoimedo's review failed to mention Unity 2D. You don't need a high powered graphics card to run it. I run it on a netbook with a Via C-7 processor.

I wonder why he never tried it. Its now available in its own PPA. It does need a few things: integration with the menu bar and right and multi-click and an expose interface like on Mac.

Its still rough but now its quite usable.

 

With both being crap, I do not see much point in arguing which one is less/more sucky. Will use Xfce, Fluxbox or whatever else, Gnome 3 is complete fail.

 

I have to agree with you on that one. Whatever I do on Unity, or Gnome Shell, I can do in half the time with the classic interface

 

Hi Norman, the last time I tested Unity, it failed to load on the machine with incompatible card, where 2d was supposed to kick in, therefore I did test it, and it was a complete failure.
Mrk

 

Hi Dedomeido, I ran it on my netbook on Mint Linux 10 GNOME. Its stable and fast and the only things I have to say are incomplete is right click in the application global menu to add an application to the launcher and there is no way to drop and drag the applications in the dock in a desired order.

It has promise but has had a rough start and I think Unity will only reveal its full potential once Oneiric Ocelot has put in an appearance. Canonical's developers have a lot of work ahead of them for it to gain full user acceptance.

But the concept as least as I played with it, is two fold: to make it easy to find applications and also files and folders from one setting and to make it easy to launch those applications a user would use most frequently.

We'll see how that works out in the future.

 

Unity "usability" test: http://www.mail-archive.com/ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com/msg02912.html

Much more to read on the above-linked thread.

 

Not to bash the hard work these people have done, but I understand your post completely Dok.

 

I ran Unity on my old Sony S360 1.7 ghz with an Ati Radeon 9700, on our AMD quad-core Desktop with a pci-e Ati Radeon 4650, and my HP dual-core laptop with a Nvidia Geforce 9300 GS and it does fine. It's quick and responsive. It's different, I grant you, but I'm sure I'll get use to it without too much adjustment. Its really not that bad. Just give it an honest try. You can do that, right? Ubuntu is trying to be progressive and as we all can see many are resistant to change. Besides, you can always use Gnome Classic if you don't like Unity.

Later...

Bob

 

Unity is slightly better than Gnome Shell. Unity is decent but too much like a normal dock with less customization. Gnome Shell is an experience I would like to forget about. I am using gnome classic in 11.04 for the perceivable future.

 

Unity is actually a combined search engine/launcher. You find what you need in the global menu and add it to the launcher.

The launcher is what used to be called Favorites in Ubuntu Netbook Remix. Instead of your most frequently accessed applications taking up a screen, they are now held in the launcher.

Unity combines the run and and bookmark functions in one application. The reason the layout is simple is that new users want to find things quickly with a minimum of fuss.

That is the interface that's going to debut with Natty Narwhal this week.

 

honestly i still dont want to go through another pain of linux beta testing

unity look better to me than gnome i tried it on 2d mode

but it would be great if they do more work on making drivers better specially video, stability sound gaming ......overall quality of system rather making something new every 6 months time

 

I agree with you about making existing components work better.

It should be pointed out GNOME was growing long in the tooth and it needed an overhaul and Canonical came out with its own UI partly out of usability as well as design differences with the GNOME team.

Hopefully, as this new UI matures, Canonical won't rush new features out on users for some years yet.

Now that the interface is settled, hopefully Canonical will work to make its Ubuntu distro a throughly stellar product!

 

Unity: 3 Rants And A Tip (w/Video: 6:50).

Its back to Classic Gnome for me - Unity just isn't versatile enough for me!
How to move back from Unity to gnome2 classic in ubuntu 11.04 natty narwhal.

-- Tom

 

Things To Tweak / Fix After Installing Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal.

-- Tom