I think you hit the nail on the head there. I mean I don't have a problem with the 6 month schedule but it does mean Unity needs several cycles before it can be considered done. One thing I think is obvious here, we have a great experience with unity but it sounds like some people don't. So there is still plenty of work to be done. I think it's a shame this work couldn't have been done whilst the old Gnome interface was still standard but we're here now so let's make the best of it. <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Ivan Wright <<a href="mailto:quidsup@gmail.com">quidsup@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> I think they needed to move on and change style, we couldn't sit with a 1995 styled OS forever. What should be done is to do away with the six month development cycle, which is far too short for the amount of work needed on Unity. An 8-12 month cycle would have been far better and allowed time for more bug fixes. For me Ubuntu 11.10 is blisteringly fast and is so easy to use on my desktop computer. I regularly have quite a few apps open at a time and the icon layout on the Launcher bar things so much easier to find. Mint 12 worked fine in Virtualbox, however lagged really badly as a full system install. I've never been a fan of Mint, but hey at least I can say I've tried it. Ivan -- <a href="mailto:ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk</a> <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/" target="_blank">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/</a> </blockquote></div>