(Note that this comparison is based on current screenshots/mockups/design information, and things might change in the future).
- The Application switcher only appears when you open the overlay in GNOME Shell, while it stays visible in Unity. With Unity applications are available without user interaction and require less mouse movement to manage
- Unity still keeps application indicators in the same area as system indicators, while GNOME Shell has system indicators only on the top panel, reducing application "indicators" to notification/status icons in the notification tray (accessed by moving your mouse to the bottom right corner of the screen). Unity provides one area to look for changes, whether they are system wide or application specific.
- Unity uses NotifyOSD for its notifications, while GNOME Shell has its own notification system. GNOME Shell's notifications are small vertically and expand when you move your mouse over them; capturing your mouse if you're doing something else on the bottom of the screen. Left unattended the lower right piles up with unread notifications, forcing you to manage every little change. NotifyOSD has semi-transparent notifications in the top-right corner that blur when you move your mouse over them. NotifyOSD is meant to be just that, a notification, completely unobtrusive and not demanding on attention. Also it appears in the consistent location of the upper right corner
- GNOME Shell features an interface switcher that makes it easy to spatially organize your running applications. Unity has no workspace switcher, and instead focuses on the currently running application window given that it is geared towards netbooks and zooming out all windows and workspaces would prove too small for a netbook screen.
- GNOME Shell's top bar is organized as follows: Activities button, Application menu, Clock (always in the center), Symbolic icons ("System indicators"), user menu. Unity's bar is as follows (this is subject to change, so I'm leaving out what I'm not sure will be there): Ubuntu button/logo, Global Menu, Indicator applet.(it's funny how for Shell you group everything for "System Indicators" yet individually spell them out for Unity, giving the appearance Unity has more clutter)
- GNOME Shell is easily theme-able, while Unity has not announced any information on theme-ing as far as I know.(does not mean it won't happen)
There, I kept the factual stuff and completely reversed the opinions so it's in the favor of Unity. :P
With that out of the way, and getting this less about Unity, is there a time frame for when elements of the GNOME Shell mockup with start to show up?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:07:08 -0500
From: sloshy45 sbcglobal net
To: sean_dunwoody yahoo com; gnome-shell-list gnome org
Subject: Re: some thoughts on gnome shell
On 07/31/2010 04:52 PM, Sean Dunwoody wrote:
"Note that
GNOME Shell will
look much different in
the future, and the menus you find hard to navigate (in this
example, the applications menu) will be much easier to
navigate."
Is Gnome Shell really going to look like that when it's
released? I was just starting to appreciate how it works and
looks now :-/
On a side note that mockup looks a LOT like Unity . . .
-Sean
Yeah, it does a bit. I do see quite a few differences though:
(Note that this comparison is based on current
screenshots/mockups/design information, and things might change in
the future).
- The Application switcher only appears when you open the
overlay in GNOME Shell, while it stays visible in Unity. I
prefer GNOME Shell's approach because it saves more horizontal
space (crucial for netbooks).
- Unity still keeps application indicators in the same area as
system indicators, while GNOME Shell has system indicators only
on the top panel, reducing application "indicators" to
notification/status icons in the notification tray (accessed by
moving your mouse to the bottom right corner of the screen).
GNOME Shell is much more organized, so I prefer its style again.
- Unity uses NotifyOSD for its notifications, while GNOME Shell
has its own notification system. GNOME Shell's notifications are
small vertically and expand when you move your mouse over them;
you can see past notifications by looking in the notification
tray. NotifyOSD has semi-transparent notifications in the
top-right corner that blur when you move your mouse over them.
They are un-clickable and provide no functionality over Shell's
notifications; you can't even access a log of your past
notifications.
- GNOME Shell features an interface switcher that makes it easy
to spatially organize your running applications. Unity has no
workspace switcher, and instead focuses on the currently running
application window.
- GNOME Shell's top bar is organized as follows: Activities
button, Application menu, Clock (always in the center), Symbolic
icons ("System indicators"), user menu. Unity's bar is as
follows (this is subject to change, so I'm leaving out what I'm
not sure will be there): Ubuntu button/logo, Indicators, Time,
MeMenu, Power Menu. GNOME Shell has an advantage here because
the clock is always in the center, while for Unity it is
awkwardly placed in-between other panel items.
- GNOME Shell is easily theme-able, while Unity has not
announced any information on theme-ing as far as I know.
I hate to sound like I'm bashing Unity, but GNOME Shell (at the very
moment, at least) seems like a much better choice for both desktops
as well as netbooks and small-screen devices. Shell is also
developed by more organizations and companies than Unity and is more
"upstream".
- Ryan Peters
PS: Just thought I should say that I am in no way affiliated with
the GNOME Shell development or design team, and I can't speak for
them. My emails are my own observations and opinions from what I
know so far and should not be taken as the opinions and observations
of anybody officially involved with the projects I mention.
_______________________________________________
gnome-shell-list mailing list
gnome-shell-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
|
