I think gnome is visually just better than KDE..
look at the cpu monitor. KDE's is rather bad. Gnome's is pretty. I need my cpu monitor, I dont trust my computer nor the apps that run on it.. from what I'm told P3 procs dont shut down when they get too hot (like P4s).. they just melt.. and I've got two. (however, I think my ubersmart motherboard has overheat protection built in.. it has monitors for just about everything and spiffy little lights that come on to show you whats wrong where.. and the fact the whole computer is setup like a windtunnel, with a large, leaf-blower-like fan that pulls air through the front hdds and blows over the processors and the rear fan helps push air out, but I'm offpoint)...
icons are changable, as are themes. more plugins are avaible if you look. One of the big problems I have with kde is kicker. its big, its ugly, its hard to make look presentable and near-impossible to kill off.
ubuntu showed me how nice the browser version of nautilus is, and I've been using it. in my book nautilus is now about equiv. to KDE as a file manager
to each his own though
meh, I originally made my current layout for my mom's use while her computer was in the shop I let her borrow mine. it closely resembles windows, and I hid the workspace switcher up at the top 'cause there really want room for everything on the one panel without expanding it any more than I already had.. then I got used to using it. It gives more desk space than a full panel at top and bottom (default gnome) (the 'hidden' workspace switcher takes up a small amount of room even when tucked up)
...
you're also using the windows standard blue bar freen. it wins zero beauty contests. I always swap computers to 'classic' when I can because its so much nicer

I'm confused though. why does it list your char.'s blood type o_O