PDA

View Full Version : Anybody else like the 2D version of Unity better than the 3D version?



nrundy
September 30th, 2011, 05:47 AM
Visually, I just find Unity-2D more appealing. It has a softer appearance. I like the dark dash instead of the 3D chameleon thing.

Besides the chameleon dash, and the accordion launcher icons, is there much else that's different?

LowSky
September 30th, 2011, 06:49 AM
I like gnome 3's gnome-shell. No reliance on Compiz and still I have 3D desktop effects. Win-Win in my book!

bloodorange
September 30th, 2011, 07:15 AM
The 3D version has a some extra usability functions that I like, such as the brilliant new "Alt + Tab", also "Windows Key + W" for an overview of open windows, and "Windows Key + S" for an overview of desktops. I use these features a lot and miss them in Unity 2D.

However, Unity 2D is nice, and it seems quite a lot faster and more responsive to me. Unfortunately, although I think Unity's great, Compiz still seems very buggy and too resource hungry. I'm on Oneiric Beta 2 now and I hope it gets better for the final 11.10 release.

Areia
October 2nd, 2011, 03:20 PM
For me, with unity interface, finally, Ubuntu have a step above, but the 3D version is slow, and a lot of machines nowadays is opting to reduce power,(like netbooks...), so why do I need a heavier OS? The 2D version just need a final touch to be perfect, anybody know that compiz is terrible, please, lets invest on a thing that will help more people!!
Anyway Ubuntu is great!!!
This is just a fan opinion.
Thank you!

IWantFroyo
October 2nd, 2011, 03:28 PM
For some reason, I'm not able to move programs around in the launcher on Unity2D.
Normal Unity is a bit slow for me.

galacticaboy
October 2nd, 2011, 04:12 PM
I prefer 2D right now. It runs on my computer, 3D does not.

3Miro
October 2nd, 2011, 06:11 PM
3D is more customizable and since it is basically compiz, for the most part is has been around longer.

Rasa1111
October 2nd, 2011, 06:44 PM
3d :)

Starlight
October 2nd, 2011, 07:52 PM
2D, I think :) It's strange, but it has much better scrolling than Unity 3D.

dniMretsaM
October 2nd, 2011, 09:05 PM
I much prefer Unity 3D to 2D. In fact, the reason I switched to KDE is because my graphics card doesn't support the 3D, so I was stuck with 2D. I didn't like 2D, so I switched to KDE (which is better than any other DE I've used so far anyway).

viperdvman
October 2nd, 2011, 10:36 PM
Well, it depends on which Unity I'm running (Natty's or Oneric's).

On Natty's Unity, there's very little difference between 2D and 3D other than transparency and I believe some of the compiz eye candy as well (I love my desktop effects).

On Oneric's Unity, there's a BIG difference. Honestly, I like Unity 3D on Oneric better than 2D, simply 'cause I like the look of the dash and launcher better. 2D looks more like Natty's 3D dash. Once Oneric comes out and I'm not running a LiveUSB, then I'll install it on my desktop, download the NVidia proprietary, and run Unity 3D.

However, for my netbook, it handles Unity 3D on Natty just fine. I have Unity 2D on my netbook, I just almost never use it since 3D works fine. However, the LiveUSB Oneric seemed to run a bit slow on it in Unity 3D, but perfect in Unity 2D. I'll have to see with a full install before I see how Unity 3D works on the netbook. (It's a strong netbook with powerful ATI graphics, HD capable). Then again, ATI's proprietary Linux drivers suck. We'll see.

My vote, for both Natty and Oneric, Unity 3D

Areia
May 9th, 2012, 03:52 AM
2D is lighter and less buggy, no comparison for me, why compiz? Just to slowdown your machine?? no thanks!