3 ms·

I agree with you, that's why Canonical did what they did. It's also why Gnome 3 is the way it is, and why Windows 8 was the way it was. But to me, it feels li

I agree with you, that's why Canonical did what they did. It's also why Gnome 3 is the way it is, and why Windows 8 was the way it was. But to me, it feels like a huge mistake in all cases. I use my desktop all day. I want an experience tailored to the desktop, not some compromise experience that's not-too-bad on the desktop and not-too-bad on a touch device. All these orgs made this huge bet that you could make a one-size-fits-all experience, and so far I'd say the results are not promising at all. Apple took the opposite tack: have a desktop UI and a touch UI, and allow them to diverge. And that seems to have worked out pretty well for them.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
Yes, the Gnome 3 and Windows 8 user interfaces went down this route as well. Going back to Unity, whilst I have only used it in passing, based on that experience I can't think of a feature that I'd miss from a more 'traditional' desktop interface. The only minor things I found jarring were the online search results in desktop search (which I believe has been disabled in 16.04) and a slightly clunky look to the search results (which is just an implementation detail, could be something that is refined in the future). Is there something you'd want from Unity that it doesn't currently offer? FWIW, I think the Windows 8 desktop interface was a mistake. There was too much hidden away. It also didn't feel cohesive to me (the jump from metro to desktop and vice versa was too jarring IMO). Metro works really well as a phone UI though (I'm using it now, I think its greatest strength is probably the speed of navigation through the interface).
- nycticorax 10y ago
  It's been a while since I used Unity, but as I recall it uses a global menu (yuk), it lacks a window list (which I like), and Alt-Tab works in a per-application, not a per-window, basis. And I think it does the Mac thing where clicking on a launcher icon either activates the app or launches it. I generally want the launcher icon to launch a new window, no matter what. It's also, IMHO, ugly as heck out of the box.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Yes, the Gnome 3 and Windows 8 user interfaces went down this route as well. Going back to Unity, whilst I have only used it in passing, based on that experience I can't think of a feature that I'd miss from a more 'traditional' desktop interface. The only minor things I found jarring were the online search results in desktop search (which I believe has been disabled in 16.04) and a slightly clunky look to the search results (which is just an implementation detail, could be something that is refined in the future). Is there something you'd want from Unity that it doesn't currently offer? FWIW, I think the Windows 8 desktop interface was a mistake. There was too much hidden away. It also didn't feel cohesive to me (the jump from metro to desktop and vice versa was too jarring IMO). Metro works really well as a phone UI though (I'm using it now, I think its greatest strength is probably the speed of navigation through the interface).

nycticorax 10y ago
It's been a while since I used Unity, but as I recall it uses a global menu (yuk), it lacks a window list (which I like), and Alt-Tab works in a per-application, not a per-window, basis. And I think it does the Mac thing where clicking on a launcher icon either activates the app or launches it. I generally want the launcher icon to launch a new window, no matter what. It's also, IMHO, ugly as heck out of the box.