Of course you’re entitled to your preference, no debating that.
I found the happily short-lived windows “metro” interface similarly jarring like you describe, but the gnome equivalent has never caused me any difficulty for some reason.
I found the happily short-lived windows “metro” interface similarly jarring like you describe, but the gnome equivalent has never caused me any difficulty for some reason.
That’s interesting. what separates the two for you? Because I dislike them both for the same reason. Is it the subtle blur and transparency for gnome?
I think that’s it: simply blurring the background instead of just disappearing, it makes it feel like it’s not “gone”; just not the current focus, so to speak.
I also was on Ubuntu for a lot of the time while they were fooling around with “Unity” so I’m sure my experience is skewed compared to a clean pure gnome setup.
Of course you’re entitled to your preference, no debating that.
I found the happily short-lived windows “metro” interface similarly jarring like you describe, but the gnome equivalent has never caused me any difficulty for some reason.
That’s interesting. what separates the two for you? Because I dislike them both for the same reason. Is it the subtle blur and transparency for gnome?
I think that’s it: simply blurring the background instead of just disappearing, it makes it feel like it’s not “gone”; just not the current focus, so to speak.
I also was on Ubuntu for a lot of the time while they were fooling around with “Unity” so I’m sure my experience is skewed compared to a clean pure gnome setup.