PDA

View Full Version : Is Unity Ubuntu's Vista?



Dragonbite
April 5th, 2012, 02:36 PM
Now before jumping into the Pro.. or Anti-.. Unity bashing let me clarify myself because I do see good aspects to Unity and I am not referring to its technical merits here.

When Windows Vista came out, it has a lot of issues that turned people off citing "instability", "incompatibility" and otherwise just "annoying". So what happened?

People started taking a look around. Linux enjoyed a surge of new users looking for somewhere to jump to other than Vista (or sticking with XP). The alternative to Windows looked better and better.

Then, when Windows 7 arrived and addressed a lot of these issues, people started going back, or taking the plunge from XP to 7 and jump over Vista in-between.

Unity, and actually this includes Gnome-shell too, is causing a similar stir. People aren't complaining about instability and incompatibility so much as the "annoying" aspect of such a radical change.

Because of this, other distributions and desktop environments are enjoying a surge of users who were otherwise happy with Gnome (2) looking for a new place to hang their hats. I've seen more mention of Xfce and LXDE than ever before in these forums.

Ubuntu 12.04 will offer a "Classic" Gnome option to appease users who just can't "move on". I am thinking this may gather a few people, but won't be enough to stem the tide. At best it lets a few hold-outs sit comfortably but eventually Gnome 2 will be gone (and the sooner the better).

So what happens now? If Ubuntu can pull a "Windows 7", which is basically the Vista pig cleaned up and with lipstick, they may find a re-surge of users coming back and new users leaving Windows because they (after Vista, and coming Windows 8 ) are realizing they DO have a choice.

Will HUD do that, or will it be like Windows' change to the Metro interface? Where will this progression go?

Ubuntu, and Linux, has a second chance now that Microsoft is deciding to follow the path Gnome-users have had to go down (somebody isn't reading their history) with radically changing the interface and not provide any "ease in" or "fallback".

Or is that just the way these shifts in user interfaces have to be? Change it, and eventually they will come around to love it!?

Your intelligent thoughts?
(No bashing please.)

SemiExpert
April 5th, 2012, 02:46 PM
Unity represents a unique solution to maximizing screen real estate on modern 16:9 displays. When you've got a limited vertical area, but a wide horizontal area, Unity's global menus and left handed launcher make sense. In contrast, the double panel Gnome system makes sense on ancient, nearly extinct 4:3 ratio displays and even on the disappearing 16:10 panels, but it's a poor solution for 16:9.

archeryguru2000
April 5th, 2012, 03:22 PM
Unity represents a unique solution to maximizing screen real estate on modern 16:9 displays. When you've got a limited vertical area, but a wide horizontal area, Unity's global menus and left handed launcher make sense. In contrast, the double panel Gnome system makes sense on ancient, nearly extinct 4:3 ratio displays and even on the disappearing 16:10 panels, but it's a poor solution for 16:9.

I personally enjoy my "ancient" Gnome interface on a 16:9 display. Since the earlier years of using Gnome (circa Ub5.10 or so), I have removed the lower panel altogether for a cleaner interface and thus increased my desktop real estate (Although my initial intent was actually to remove many of the similarities to Windoze :) ).

Anyway, I do agree that we will see a similar trend in Desktop Environments as was seen by MS with the dramatic switch to Vista. In my honest opinion, I did not see anything wrong with the Gnome DE to make such a drastic modification anyway. Therefore, I personally have become reluctant to upgrade my Ubuntu OS. In the end, I will probably test drive XFCE or LXDE (or some other distro altogether) before staring at the new face of Gnome all day at work.

~~archery~~

Bandit
April 5th, 2012, 03:56 PM
Unity represents a unique solution to maximizing screen real estate on modern 16:9 displays. When you've got a limited vertical area, but a wide horizontal area, Unity's global menus and left handed launcher make sense. In contrast, the double panel Gnome system makes sense on ancient, nearly extinct 4:3 ratio displays and even on the disappearing 16:10 panels, but it's a poor solution for 16:9.

Very valid point. Even Gnome3 has it on the left side. The one things that drives me nuts about unity is that you cant make the dock hide by default or move it. Now the Gnome3 "dock" can not be moved as well, but the virtual desktop dock is on the right side. Which gives a balanced feel to the desktop were as the unity dock being on one side without something on the adjacent side feel lop sided. It feel strange as well when using it. The Gnome3 offering though feel fluid and is easy to manage multiple desktops and move applications around. But all in all what gets me the most about Unity is how the menus are being handled. Dont get me wrong, I really like most of them being moved up to the taskbar per se. What I dont like is that they are hidden unless your mouse hovers over them. IMHO if they was just put to the left of the application name like its done on OSX, Unity would be a solid UI.
But overall I think the Devs have been doing a good job, but those two things I listed are whats hurting Ubuntu and Unity the most.

keithpeter
April 5th, 2012, 04:28 PM
In the end, I will probably test drive XFCE or LXDE (or some other distro altogether) before staring at the new face of Gnome all day at work.

Hello archeryguru2000

CentOS/Scientific Linux/PUIAS 6.x releases have support until 2020 or so, and kernel/software versions similar to 10.04. See my signature.

But I think after a week or two you might not notice that you are using Unity (or gnome-shell). That's what I found.

To actually answer the question: No. 12.04 runs ok with Unity2d on a P3 with 512Mb. The biggie with Vista was hardware performance as I remember it.

Erik1984
April 5th, 2012, 04:49 PM
I think Natty was Ubuntu's Vista that sparked interest in other environments and many people return to the good old Ubuntu with Precise.

SemiExpert
April 5th, 2012, 06:00 PM
I think Natty was Ubuntu's Vista that sparked interest in other environments and many people return to the good old Ubuntu with Precise.

11.04 was actually the last release featuring Gnome 2.x.

Bandit
April 5th, 2012, 06:25 PM
... The biggie with Vista was hardware performance as I remember it.

Yea VISTA was performance issues, the UI for the most part was a huge leap in the right direction. It looked very nice and offered more options while keeping to the over all original design model. The issue with Vista was File Indexing service that went wild.. Which is why in Win7 its turned off by default and added under the services tab in Add/Remove Software.

PuddingKnife
April 5th, 2012, 06:35 PM
11.04 was actually the last release featuring Gnome 2.x.

Yes, and bolting Unity onto Gnome 2.x was an awful idea. They should have just polished it a bit longer and premiered it in 11.10, but it is what it is.

I dont think Unity represents a failure for Canonical though. Its really one of the only times I've seen a linux distro create its own look and feel, and I think that is valuable. It has not hindered my workflow, thought I do have a top 3 list of complaints:

1. Hidden Menus
2. Clicking an icon on the launcher does nothing on an app that's already open
3. No hover animations for the launcher

These are small(ish) complaints that I keep up hope for in terms of change. Overall I certainly prefer it over Gnome 2.x, and it runs fairly well on my dated hardware. It's been rock solid stable on my 12.04 install, and overheating issues seem to have been cleared up.
All this while it's in beta.

click4851
April 5th, 2012, 06:37 PM
Yes

Roasted
April 5th, 2012, 06:51 PM
No. Unity landed during a 6 month release with another 6 month release as a buffer prior to an LTS coming. It was perfect timing to try something new, if you ask me. 11.04's Unity was a bust, everybody knows that, but I feel as though Ubuntu knew this as well because 11.04 was based on a different platform than 11.10's Unity was. This was something they even announced early on.

The introduction of 12.04 has released my death grip from Gnome Shell, which I absolutely love, and allowed me to use Unity in a practical, sensible way. It's faster, sleek, decent performing, and the more I use it, the more I "get" it.

Based on what I'm seeing from Unity in 12.04, I'd say it's far from Vista, and more of a home run. I actually like Unity, something I never, ever thought I'd say.

Don't get me wrong, I still love my Gnome Shell, XFCE, and LXDE boxes, but Unity has a new home on my primary system until I run into a significant reason to ditch it... something I do not expect to happen based on the amount of time I've already used it with success.

YMMV.

Dragonbite
April 5th, 2012, 06:59 PM
Yes, and bolting Unity onto Gnome 2.x was an awful idea. They should have just polished it a bit longer and premiered it in 11.10, but it is what it is.

I dont think Unity represents a failure for Canonical though. Its really one of the only times I've seen a linux distro create its own look and feel, and I think that is valuable. It has not hindered my workflow, thought I do have a top 3 list of complaints:

1. Hidden Menus
2. Clicking an icon on the launcher does nothing on an app that's already open
3. No hover animations for the launcher

These are small(ish) complaints that I keep up hope for in terms of change. Overall I certainly prefer it over Gnome 2.x, and it runs fairly well on my dated hardware. It's been rock solid stable on my 12.04 install, and overheating issues seem to have been cleared up.
All this while it's in beta.

I don't think Unity is a failure for Ubuntu but just like it took Windows 7 to overcome the stigma and perception of Vista even though it basically Vista++, so too Unity has this perception it needs to overcome.

I'm more interested in the effect of Unity within the computer environment and less on the technical aspects.

Linux has different issues, and they get fixed more rapidly but that is a nature of Linux and Open Source as opposed to Unity specifically.

BigSilly
April 5th, 2012, 07:16 PM
I think Natty was Ubuntu's Vista that sparked interest in other environments and many people return to the good old Ubuntu with Precise.

I agree. I think Natty for me was the point where I really questioned the direction and the ability of Ubuntu to deliver new ideas. As it happened I couldn't even use it, as the thing just wouldn't work for me. I switched away because it didn't even work for me, and I expected things to end up "a bit Vista" for Unity. Luckily 11.10 really proved that wrong, and 12.04 is going further still to cement Unity as officially a Good Move.

So no, I don't see "Unity" as Ubuntu's Vista at all, but I did view Natty as a big change that was very problematic on many levels. I guess they had to break the thing to be able to put it back together again. ;)


11.04 was actually the last release featuring Gnome 2.x.

That's true but it was also the first release of Unity in mainstream Ubuntu.

Erik1984
April 5th, 2012, 11:26 PM
11.04 was actually the last release featuring Gnome 2.x.

That's right, but the fact that it was still based on Gnome2 got snowed under by all the Unity rage :p

TeamRocket1233c
April 6th, 2012, 01:16 AM
How well would the default Ubuntu install with Unity run on an Inspiron when compared to a custom Ubuntu install with Fluxbox, that also uses the CLI for adding new software, as compared to Synaptic or whatever package manger front-end the default Unity-based install uses?

And the Inspiron I'm referring to is a current-gen one. I'm also a tad curious to try Unity out as well, after testing GNOME Shell in Fedora 16 and liking it.

SemiExpert
April 7th, 2012, 04:07 AM
How well would the default Ubuntu install with Unity run on an Inspiron when compared to a custom Ubuntu install with Fluxbox, that also uses the CLI for adding new software, as compared to Synaptic or whatever package manger front-end the default Unity-based install uses?

And the Inspiron I'm referring to is a current-gen one. I'm also a tad curious to try Unity out as well, after testing GNOME Shell in Fedora 16 and liking it.

From what I've seen, 12.04 is running just fine on a Sandy Bridge system. My suggestion to you is that you should try 12.04 with a Live Disc or Unetbootin. I've done command line installs on previous releases, using just a simple window manager, without any desktop environment. It works, but if you've got recent hardware, you're better off with a full GUI. Try it before you install it.

Claus7
April 7th, 2012, 04:29 AM
Hello,

...hmmm so indeed it is obvious that many people abandoned ubuntu due to unity... even to the mod people of ubuntu...

pity that is...

discussing with my friends, their main concern about ubuntu is compatibility (at least this is what they say)

if they hear about bugs or 2 billion desktop environments, and that from all these nothing works, and in addition an ongoing war for: unity or not unity, I do not think that this is in favour of ubuntu

12.04 will have gnome 2, compiz and cairo dock? by default? as in maverick?

veeery interesting so as to give it a try...

nonetheless, no matter how many might have abandoned ubuntu, still, there are many users here, and will stay!
with unity or not...

ps: I do not know if unity is ubuntu (s)vista or not, yet, if it is: what comes after that?

Regards!

SemiExpert
April 7th, 2012, 04:35 AM
12.04 will have gnome 2, compiz and cairo dock? by default? as in maverick?



No, 12.04 has Gnome 3 as an option. Gnome 2.x is truly dead, and as previously stated, 11.04 was the last version of Ubuntu with Gnome 2.x. You have to install gnome-panel to have the option of the former Gnome 3 based fallback mode, which is now confusingly known as Gnome Classic.