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

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?

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!

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

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!