Strange how on the surface much of the UI looks copied from windows (configuration screens, file copies, system monitor -- those tabs, yuk!). Apart from the start menu, things look very similar. I haven't used Ubuntu myself, but is this true? Is it very much like Windows?
Someone downmodded you for simply asking a question. I didn't know we had Ubuntu nazis here...
The answer is yes and no. I cannot stand KDE because it reminds me of Winodws too much. Gnome is more "authentic" - sure there are close/maximize/minimize buttons, and hotkeys are the same. Gnome is much younger than Windows and picking up established standards for keys wasn't a bad idea. One of the reasons I went with FireFox instead of Opera some time ago was because FireFox had all the hotkeys I was using with IE.
However, under the surface Gnome is very different from Win. For instance windows can have two additional states: "vertically maximized" and "horizontally maximized" - and there are hotkeys for both. Additionally there are many little nice gems, like you can drag your windows around without use of the title bar, just hold Alt key. Virtual desktops are also tightly integrated, you can switch between the two and easily throw windows between them.
I also love the menu bar at the top: it has everything on it. By everything I mean literally "everything I want to see in front of my eyes at all times": status of hardware, weather, shortcuts, etc.
But the real "bomb" IMO is Ubuntu's font rendering. On high DPI screens the comfort of reading text is approaching that of paper. Granted, I am using non-standard libcairo (font rendering) package and my settings are adjusted from Ubuntu's defaults, but the point is that it's there: and going back to Windows makes me feel crippled and tired after a while. I end up taking my Ubuntu laptop to work and use it for web browsing and email, anything to take a break from thin and low-contrast Windows fonts.
