| Re: Why Yes/No to Gnome-Shell?
May 14 2011 on group Gnome-Shell |
Actually, when I first heard of GNOME Shell, I thought it was going to be horrible.
However, I recently installed it on my Arch Linux Desktop and I've found it to be a lot better than I thought it would be.
It might not be as customizable yet, but it looks so much more polished up and professional out of the box than GNOME2 in its default configuration ever did.
It's pretty much as if GNOME-DO had been implemented as a core element of the desktop environment. You just hit the Win-Key or move your cursor to the upper left corner and start typing. Whatever you want to launch, that's the way to go.
What I don't like in GNOME Shell (and don't like in Unity either) are the huge icons in the applications menu. They are great for touchscreen devices, but for your average laptop or desktop computer, they just make no sense.
But, as opposed to the way I had to use Unity, in GNOME Shell, I haven't needed to use the applications menu even once. The search-function has made menus pretty much needless in my opinion. It's fast, intuitive and simple - I like it and I'm pretty sure an unexperienced user might get along with it too (which, in my opinion is not at all the case with Unity... but that's a different topic).
The only thing that has really bothered me so far is the inability to minimize windows. It's not necessary, but at times, it makes focusing on a single, non-maximized window easier and seems more comfortable than switching to an unused desktop.
In a nutshell, I'd call GNOME Shell a big step in the right direction in terms of design in all its different meanings: better looks, simplicity in design and ease of use.
On a sidenote, it even works on pretty old hardware - I recently got it to run decently on a pretty old AMD Athlon 1 GHz Single Core / Radeon9550 running on FOSS-Drivers / 512MB DDR RAM. No performance drawbacks compared to GNOME 2. |
|  |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
