I have used every flavor of Windows going back to 3.1. Ditto with Macs. My first was the old Mac Classic and I've at least put my hands on all of them since. However, my first venture into Linux was Ubuntu running Gnome 2.x and it was love at first sight. The Gnome desktop was as simple and elegant as any user interface I had ever encountered. After all, there are only three basic things that I do with my computer. I use applications, I file or store things, and I adjust various system settings. Behold, with Gnome all those basic tasks of computing were laid out in a simple, elegant menu that was available system wide. They were also categorized in such a way that even the uninitiated could be up and running with it in a matter of minutes. Not only that, but most common tasks could be accessed with a single mouse click. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, Unity is a step back from this. Yes, it looks good. And, yes you can customize it to access most common tasks quickly and efficiently. But out of the box, checking for applications and/or settings brings up a mind numbing number of randomized options. Virtually everything is thrown together at once in a confusing array of giant icons. It is true you can quickly narrow your options with a search or by clicking a secondary menu to limit the categories. But really, everything is just more intuitive and straightforward under Gnome 2.x. So, why do people dislike Unity (and probably Gnome 3 Shell as well)? Because there's nothing better once you've had the best. Its a grief thing. Progress isn't always forward, but its always final. Gnome 2 will ultimately go the way of the dinosaur and the trend is toward making the desktop a giant smart phone. It will still be functional, and more beautiful than ever. But it will probably never again be as elegant and efficient as it is right now under Gnome 2.x. I accept that, but I don't have to be happy about it.
PS
I have to eat a little crow on this one. Having test driven Gnome 3 for a couple of weeks, I have to admit I love it. I initially believed that because it appeared so much like Unity that it would offer a similar user experience to Unity. It doesn't. Although it took a couple of days to understand and appreciate, I can honestly say I wouldn't go back to Gnome 2 as much as I loved it. I regret having spoken before I tried it. It has fundamentally changed the way I interact with my computer in a positive way. And, much to my surprise it has made my computing experience both more productive and aethetically pleasing. Give it a try, but don't try to use it the way you would Windows, KDE, or Gnome 2. Just go with its design and work flow for a few days. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I know I was.
on one hand it looks nice but on the other hand it makes me surprisingly tired using my mouse (with having left button pushed down) going up and down thorough sidebar launcher icons (also it scrolls automatically during mouse hover but it is creepy and somehow slow) while I am too much comfortable and faster with classic gnome desktop not because I got used to it because Unity makes it strange and slow. I think for a touch-screen monitor unity could be kind of an advantage for gnome desktop.
