I've slightly changed my working environment recently, for the first time in years. Other than adding the System Monitor applet to the panel at the top of my GNOME desktop, I've basically been using the default setup since I switched to GNOME a few years ago.
The default setup has a panel at the top of the screen and another at the bottom. The top panel has a few menus, an icon that gets you a new web browser, a few other icons, a clock, and a weird log out/shut down/reboot button duplicating part of one of the menus. The bottom panel has a button to hide all windows, a big space for buttons representing windows, a little representation of your virtual desktops, and a trash can.
Type "ubuntu" into your favorite image search.
Of these things, the only things I used frequently were the icon that gets me a new web browser and the clock. I used the buttons representing windows too, to some extent, but I didn't really like them and often felt like they were costing me more time than they were saving me. Certainly the experience was nothing like as smooth as Mac OS' dock.
What I didn't know was that the top panel and the bottom panel aren't fundamentally different. They're both the same kind of container, different only in the stuff they happen to have in them. I learned this when I saw someone else's desktop and noticed that they'd moved the buttons representing windows into their top panel, and removed their bottom panel entirely. Even on a 30" display, pixels are valuable, and vertical pixels especially so.
I immediately switched to just one panel. Being a Unix/Mac OS kind of person, I kept the top panel. The bottom panel had always bothered me a bit, possibly because it's so Windows-like, but having tried my single panel in both places, I have to say I much prefer it at the bottom of the screen. I can actually feel myself having to look up when it's at the top. You could argue that's good, because it's not particularly useful, and you may as well have it out of the way, but being a miserable sod, I find that just makes it even more annoying when i do have to use it. I also find it easier to hit the web browser icon when it's at the bottom rather than the top; possibly just because it's easier for my eyes to keep up with my mousing.
What about the sides? Good question. On Mac OS, I've only ever used the dock at the side. Left or right. I don't much care. I love this, because it takes the least space, and that space is horizontal space, which I have more of anyway. It works well on Mac OS because everything in the dock is basically square. Any text only shows when you point, and it shows over the desktop, where there's plenty of space anyway. The other reason it works is that the Mac's dock only has one entry per application, rather than one per window.
If you find the exact right pixel to click (right-click the little grip to the left of the buttons; the nice big space on the right gets you a completely different menu) you can set the "Always group windows" property to get a lame-ass imitation of this. It's okay in terms of saving space, but the behavior shows the usual lack of respect for the user and what they might be trying to do. In particular, you can't easily bring all an application's windows to the front. That's not a big problem for something like a web browser or terminal emulator where an application's various windows aren't closely related other than by parentage, but it's a pain for applications that have a small number of genuinely related windows: you can't conveniently bring "the application" to the front. It's even quite awkward to hide (minimize) all of an application's windows. Certainly nothing approaching the "click to show, command-H to hide" I so miss from Mac OS. What else is wrong? The visual indication of minimized windows could be more distinct (as it is, the title is simply surrounded by square brackets). The title shown in the panel is the application title if you have more than one window, but the window title if you only have one window. I'm sure this was well-intentioned, and it does sound reasonable until you use it, but it just doesn't work if you keep opening and closing windows. The text you're looking for keeps changing, and its position changes too, though I'll admit that I honestly can't work out what the sorting criteria are. Random shuffle? Finally, most difficult to fix, you only get an entry per window. So if you use tabs, you'll only see the title of the currently-visible tab in each window. This really sucks, but even the non-free OSes don't get this right yet.
Even with those reservations, I'm still happier like this. I have enough windows open at any given time that the other style just isn't useful. Fifty little buttons all with nothing more than an icon and "..." may as well not be there at all for all the good it does. (Which strikes me as odd; surely users who don't open many windows don't really need the buttons anyway?)
Just as I thought I was done messing with configuration, I accidentally removed my "Applications", "Places", and "System" menus. Which was 99% fine by me, but I do actually need them once a week or so. So I choose "Add to Panel..." and add "Main Menu" back. Only it turns out that "Main Menu" is just an Ubuntu logo. Clicking on it gets you a single menu that's basically the "Applications" menu with the semi-useful bits of the other menus tacked on the bottom. So there's a few hundred more pixels you can save: remove the menus and add "Main Menu" back for no loss of functionality but plenty more space. (The new menu is nice and easy to hit, too, being right in the corner.)
The one change I made after this was to swap the relative positions of the system monitor and my web browser and terminal emulator icons. I originally had the icons right after the wordy menus, and the system monitor in the wasteland to the right. Even when I switched to one panel at the bottom, I saw no reason to change this. But making the menus really small moved those icons further from the center of the screen where, on average, my mouse pointer is. Swapping the two moves the buttons closer to hand. (Or, if you prefer, brings them within range of a single mouse sweep rather than requiring two, which is far more aggravating than you'd credit.)
Anyway, here are my suggestions again:
1. One panel is enough for the stuff that actually does anything.
2. The bottom of the screen seems to be a better place for this panel than the top.
3. "Always group windows" isn't as stupid as the default behavior.
4. Removing the menus and adding "Main Menu" back looks and feels better.
The only other things I have in my panel are the "lock screen" icon and the date/time/weather thingy. I used to have the "lock screen" icon with the other two, but I found myself sometimes confusing the terminal emulator icon and the lock screen icon, or at least pausing to make sure which one I wanted to press (they're both basically small dark squares representing monitors), which is stupid when one of them I want a hundred times a day and the other maybe twice. (No, I don't lock my machine when I go for a piss. I piss in the corner of the office.) Moving the lock screen icon out next to the clock thingy cured that.
I will admit that, all in all, I've made my desktop look a lot more like Windows than it did. But I'm man enough to admit it's better for it. And I'm grumpy enough to wish I didn't have to waste my declining years pissing about with stuff that shouldn't be getting in my way in the first place.
Maybe next year I'll learn how to use gconftool(1) to stop the window manager from opening every window in the top left corner right on top of the last one, as soon as the screen is too "full" to place the window in completely empty space. (You know, ten seconds after you log in.) Presumably GNOME developers have 15" displays and only open one maximized window at a time, like the Windows users of Windows-haters' myth?