Gnome Shell looks different from Windows 8 interface other than sharing similar feature like lockscreen.End of story. The GNOME developers really need to pull their head out of their ass, and realise the mistakes with gnome shell mirror the mistakes that Microsoft has made with Windows 8.
Gnome Shell is simple effective once you use it as intended rather that sticking to a close mindset.Just admit they were wrong and offer the classic mode under a better name as the default option, or make it so on first launch a dialog pops up asking you to choose which one you want. Simple, effective, and will make Linux leap ahead of Windows and OSX.
And? I have a 27 inch monitor taking advantage of available space. You can increase the HD DPI to fit the desktop as you wish via Tweak Tool, use the Universal Access to increase the size of the text.I have a 30" monitor at 2560x1600.
You justify your laziness for those tasks?There's no way I want to be alt-tab switching between terminals and content creation apps like the gimp. or my C programming and 3d modelling apps.
Gnome Shell isn't a tablet UI. It is a modern desktop environment taking advantage of keyboard.Gnome remains my favourite desktop environment, but I really wish they'd stop trying to push the tablet UI stuff so heavily. Tablet's are not the future.
Closed minded users alteniated themselves expecting developers who are also users freely worked for them with their obligation. OSX control panel was chosen for better design and effective layout blending the bridge between traditional desktop and tablet. Gnome Classic is an extended Gnome Shell intended for conservative market. Gnome Shell is fine as it is, it becomes harder to go back to the legacy Gnome 2 now living as MATE.I like how a lot of the gui is now ripping off OSX like the control panel. But I wish they'd stop alienating people with gnome-shell.[...]. It's not good enough to throw in gnome-classic and say the job is done, they need to promote gnome classic as an equal interface to gnome-shell.
I've tried the RHEL 7 beta, not very exciting as it is an Enterprise Linux distro and is intended as Servers. So Desktop Environment doesn't really matter too much. As GNOME 3 sank after ditching fallback mode (in 3.8?), I gave up and switched to KDE 4.10 (now 4.13), can't be happier. KWin even have most of the Compiz eye candies built-in.
It is not using systemd as its default init system, finally!
It's not only intended as servers. Rock-solid stability is also a concern for workstations in enterprise world, as for the software they use. The cost of misfuntionning is dramatic. So it has to be functional, and thus not "fancy".
Look at the way Microsft had to keep an almost identical desktop environment from Windows NT to Windows Seven (most of the components evolved, but keep the same philosophy), not to lose users. RedHat had to do the same, and it was harder due to the switch to said-to-be crappy GTK3 (I can't judge myself, I'm not using it).
That was dropped once Shell could run acceptably on non-3D-capable machines via software 3D. The "Classic" mode is a new thing which *is* intended as an alternate interface for 'old-school' people. It's not gnome-panel (and various other old-GNOME components) like 'fallback mode' was; it's just a set of Shell extensions that modify the Shell's appearance and behaviour.