I don't know if I would like, dislike or hate Unity. That is because I have
not tried it and that is because my desktop computer display adaptor and it
don't see eye-to-eye. One of these days when I get a computer or display
adaptor that is comparable I will most likely get to the place where I like
it much better than Gnome. Until then none of my computers are ready it.

I hear you. Unity requires Compiz. However Unity 2D does not and the look
and feel is very close. Since you are not yet a Unity hater I hope that you
will get to the point where you can decide for yourself.

Regarding your thoughts on 11.10,I tried the Beta version
recently,and though I liked Unity I found navigating to Administration and
Preferences etc difficult as they appear to be hidden?or have I missed
something?I couldnt find a way,as there is an option in 11.04 to go back to
classic gnome,as this didnt appear at log in?

The settings are in Compiz settings manager. You can get to the classic look
such as it is after you install gnome-panel which is not installed by
default.

I am too and I am primarily a KDE user. I like challenges. Unity is a
challenge for someone who has used a personal computer since the early 80s.
You get locked into doing things a certain way. Unity challenges those
assumptions and presents me with a new way to interact. I am not comfortable
with it yet, but am open to new ideas. It may not win me over but I will
try.
I never really liked classic Gnome I confess. It was dumbed down too much.
Now I find Unity even more so. A double challenge!

Sure, life would be very boring without challenges,specially in
retirement

Well, well, it is good news even for me, it is a challenge and I am going to
buy another hard disk after the next salary and put the newest Ubuntu on it (I
also need some more space). My experimental hard disk is given away. I will try
to resist on the barricades a whole day under Ubuntu with Unity and another day
with Gnome shell. And then switch to the DEs and WMs that are better for me and
for most users.
But, I must repeat, the older Gnome with Compiz is rather slow but
comfortable and very practical, XFCE is fast, LXDE is faster than Windows XP and
it is really usable and efficient. FVWM-Crystal is a jewel, FVWM is good enough,
Afterstep is more stressing than any Windows. I cannot stand it more than 10
minutes.

I have that problem too, but it is a good problem to have.

Unity is made to work with the latest and greatest. It is forward looking
and not made for older hardware. That is where Unity 2D comes in. Another
problem is that it is built on the Gnome 3 framework and I am not sure how
that its optimized for older machines.
My general opinion is that older hardware should stick with older distros
and older versions. Those distros had equipment of its era in mind while
later ones pander to the next generation.
There are exceptions. Some people are willing to compile and tinker to get
the most out of what is available to them.

If Unity keeps up the policy of working only with the latest and greatest
I'm afraid I'll be using another OS. I can't afford to be buying a new
computer every 6 months. I don't need the latest OS or the latest apps. What
I need is a computer that does what I need to do. I understand the need to
stop supporting older hardware that is say 5 or 10 years old and supporting
it only bloats the new software. The 5 years if after they stop making it
not 5 years from when they started making it. Many, probably your average,
users buy hardware with the expectation that it will be supported for 4 or
so years after they purchase it, unless they are knowingly buying a older,
though still in a sealed box, piece of hardware.

Unity is only one option in the Canonical stable. Users with older systems
or those that duo not want to chase trends can use the LTS and use a less
powerful desktop. Unity runs on a netbook with 1gb of Ram just fine. The
problem that will affect most users will be having compositing and getting
the right graphics driver.
Ubuntu has always had a fascination with being on the bleeding edge. The
move to Unity and later Wayland confused some observers, but if you
understand Shuttleworth and his vision it should not surprise. They are on a
mission and have been for some time.
They may leave some users behind initially but once people get it they will
be out front.
What Unity achieves is more choice and even of you don't use it.we still
benefit.

Its like Win 7 and touch screen ability, it leave many behind but heck
progress is what computing is all about surely. Beta Wn 8 is on the go
now but Win 1 still runs on some computers.

W8 could be another Vista or Unity. It already has people lining up, for and
against. The Metro interface has many people worried. Like Unity it is
progressive, but it leaves desktop users behind. This its more worrisome for
MS because they have a large base of established users particularly in
business which are slow to adapt.
We live in a time of change.
Tablets and mobile devices are the future and MS is late in the game, but
their entry adds much weight to the argument that the age of desktop
computing is ending.
Many of us who grew up with desktop computers will resist to the end. Myself
included. It is way too much fun!

Unity is not alone. Lion, Gnome 3, Unity and W8 face the same challenge
which is to prepare for the future and at the same time not leave others
behind. Compromise inevitably gives mediocre results. You end up ticking
people at both ends. Striking a balance is tricky.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has used Unity and W8. I
don't expect them to be similar, but they are striving for the same balance.