What do you think of Windows 8?

[RawChicken]

PCs as in the desktop/tower computer part are dying for personal use! That is the critical problem MS is working to address. People want portability, but people also need to be productive. That means we need a solution that can be both, the best answer for that is a tablet that can turn into a laptop and then turn into a desktop very easily. Sure, gamers and high demand people will need big PCs for years and years but that's a small portion of the population. As I've said before, stock Win 8 is awful for the desktop side right now, but it's fantastic for tablets and pretty good for laptops. We know MS can do desktop very well, we also now know (and importantly THEY know) that they can do tablets well, the only thing left is to bring those together. You can dispute whether MS's path for getting to the end is the best way or not (I'd say not quite) but the goal is exactly what is needed.

Exactly, it is this what I dont like.. Desktops will always need a desktop OS. Hats why I assume people will migrate to Linux once it becomes more mid-user friendly and Windows too tablet-faced.

As for the simplicity side, simplicity is not just about ease of use, it's also about reliability and consistency and that is what MS is focusing on for the mobile side. Over time I desperately hope MS brings more customisability to mobile but it's not as important as it is for desktop use. Win 8.1 is opening a huge amount up with a lot more customisation and desktop oriented features, it's also narrowing the gap between Metro and desktop. As for general desktop hackability, that's pretty much stayed the same or improved with 8.

Thats it, I am hoping for a more "open" OS where you can access any file you want and edit it as you want. For example in mac its hard, in iOS is not possible without hacking the device. But this is not only what I mean with more options, I think having many functions is necessary.

Imagine this scenario, you right-click a file and you get only 2 options, "copy" and "delete". Not useful at all on desktop.

What I don't like is not having a OS for my desktop. Thou I understand the mainstream market is on tablets/laptops, and that is what Microsoft is aiming for.

The share button doesn't hurt you, it's not in the way or forcing you. It's there because the basic UI needs to remain constant through the OS, it's also only really designed for the mobile side where it does make a lot of sense for people who use a lot of social stuff.

I know, I know, but the same with the PS4 controller, I just think it doesn't belong there.

I agree Windows8 is a good OS and introduces a new type of OS and all of that, but it is not what I need as I am a desktop user. And I can see how desktops are being left aside and I dont want that to happen

[hawkinator]

Personally, I think some of the things they did VERY right, like this:

The file manager is definitely way cooler with the addition of the overhead toolbar. I like this, because it shows off a UI design that enhances the experience on both touchscreen and mouse pointer interfaces. The toolbar makes the touchscreen interface usable, and it also makes the mouse-based interface more smooth.

[Foamy]

I've said this a million times' date=' Windows 8 is Microsoft's way of trying to grab the lions share of the tablet market. I have Windows 8 on a tablet, not the crap RT version, but full blown win8. For a touch OS it's really good. The software availability is the biggest issue currently. Most of the software on their store is utter crap or a junk port or wrapper.

[/quote']

Win 8 already has 7-8% of total tablet sales after less than 6 months of sale. Also, the surface RT is outselling the Nexus 10, and RT is lacking a lot. My opinion on RT is that is was essential to bring WP onto the Win 8 kernel. Eventually MS will work out a way of blending things together, but they need something to get their foot in the door. I wouldn't buy RT personally nor recommend anyone else to do so.

Exactly, it is this what I dont like.. Desktops will always need a desktop OS. Hats why I assume people will migrate to Linux once it becomes more mid-user friendly and Windows too tablet-faced.

Thats it, I am hoping for a more "open" OS where you can access any file you want and edit it as you want. For example in mac its hard, in iOS is not possible without hacking the device. But this is not only what I mean with more options, I think having many functions is necessary.

Imagine this scenario, you right-click a file and you get only 2 options, "copy" and "delete". Not useful at all on desktop.

What I don't like is not having a OS for my desktop. Thou I understand the mainstream market is on tablets/laptops, and that is what Microsoft is aiming for.

I know, I know, but the same with the PS4 controller, I just think it doesn't belong there.

I agree Windows8 is a good OS and introduces a new type of OS and all of that, but it is not what I need as I am a desktop user. And I can see how desktops are being left aside and I dont want that to happen

MS spends years making 7, everyone loves it, now that they're doing something else in addition you think they've suddenly forgotten how to do desktop at all? Like Win 7 was a fluke?

Desktops don't need a desktop OS, they need an OS that can do desktop very well, that doesn't mean it can't do other stuff well too. MS knows how to do great desktop, Win 8 is in a state of flux and currently does not focus on that, there is absolutely no reason to think that Win 9 will not be magnificent as a desktop, it can be magnificent as a tablet OS at the same time though. If you're happy with Win 7's level of customisation then you should be happy with Win 8 aside from a couple of minor things that MS is fixing for 8.1.

I can 100% understand people not wanting to use Win 8 on a desktop at the moment, but that doesn't mean the trend as a whole is bad for desktops. People want a great desktop & mobile experience, MS is certainly capable of making a great desktop & mobile experience, MS needs to make a great desktop & mobile experience, MS has the time to make a great desktop & mobile experience, they have shown and said that they intend to make a great desktop & mobile experience, and yet people scream and thrash around as if MS is driving full speed off a cliff in the opposite direction.

[ROFLCopter64bit]

I can 100% understand people not wanting to use Win 8 on a desktop at the moment, but that doesn't mean the trend as a whole is bad for desktops. People want a great desktop & mobile experience, MS is certainly capable of making a great desktop & mobile experience, MS needs to make a great desktop & mobile experience, MS has the time to make a great desktop & mobile experience, they have shown and said that they intend to make a great desktop & mobile experience, and yet people scream and thrash around as if MS is driving full speed off a cliff in the opposite direction.

Yes. How I think of it is that Microsoft tried to make a desktop and mobile OS in one. They partially succeeded, but of course they failed in some areas. They tried this by splitting the desktop part and the tablet part, which some people like. Whenever you boot Win 8, it takes you to the tablet part first. But, when you click the desktop button, it magically transforms into the desktop part. They did muck-up here, by not letting you disable the tablet part and whenever you accidently put two fingers on the touchpad it takes you to Xbox Music. (Does anyone else hate that?) I have a laptop with Windows 7, but my brother has a Windows 8 laptop and he asks me every 5 minutes to help him because he "forgot how to send emails".

[The Destroyer]

I don't know, I'm sticking to Win7 right now.

[tygoo7]

I didn't like the original when I got my new pc but I downloaded the Start Menu 8 thing and I think its awesome.

[Ohm Machre]

I haven't a lot to say about Windows 8 myself.

I've used Windows 7 since my laptop broke four years ago - which had Vista, which, surprisingly, I really liked.

So I love Win7 even more. To me it feels like a computer.

I'd be alright with Macs, if it weren't for their price tag...

But, as I mentioned in the Win3 thread, my mother got a laptop with Windows 8 on it.

I can't stand it.

That may be due to how deeply rooted I am to Win7, though. On top of that, I haven't the slightest idea how it handles games, so it makes me generally wary, since that's essentially the heart of my computer.

I'm not against Win8. I know technology is going to develop according to the customs of today's people. But it's so radically different from Win7 that it forms a barrier that my mind can't get past to try it.

But ah well. We've only two years to wait for Windows 9, so let's see what they make of it. =)

[ROFLCopter64bit]

I haven't a lot to say about Windows 8 myself.

I've used Windows 7 since my laptop broke four years ago - which had Vista, which, surprisingly, I really liked.

So I love Win7 even more. To me it feels like a computer.

I'd be alright with Macs, if it weren't for their price tag...

But, as I mentioned in the Win3 thread, my mother got a laptop with Windows 8 on it.

I can't stand it.

That may be due to how deeply rooted I am to Win7, though. On top of that, I haven't the slightest idea how it handles games, so it makes me generally wary, since that's essentially the heart of my computer.

I'm not against Win8. I know technology is going to develop according to the customs of today's people. But it's so radically different from Win7 that it forms a barrier that my mind can't get past to try it.

But ah well. We've only two years to wait for Windows 9, so let's see what they make of it. =)

Same here. Change kills me. But at least I can make Windows 7 look like Vista.

[hawkinator]

That may be due to how deeply rooted I am to Win7, though. On top of that, I haven't the slightest idea how it handles games, so it makes me generally wary, since that's essentially the heart of my computer.

I, personally, have never had a problem with any game in Windows 8 that I didn't have in Windows 7 (same exact hardware). That said, some older games I've tried to run actually seem to work better than they did on 7, though I don't know if that's across the board.

[Amram]

One can only hope 9 isn't a miserable failure, and that they don't waste their time completing it.

I think they'd have received FAR less crap over this if they made it clear it was not intended as a desktop OS, but could be used as one, and that a proper successor to win7 is coming, and if they hadn't named this OS to fit the succession of desktop OSes they've made.

I agree with these assessments 100% in every single way.

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/04/05/microsoft-windows-rt-price-cuts-dont-stop-death-spriral/

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138701-windows-8-the-disastrous-result-of-microsofts-gutless-equivocation

That its one of the first All Ballmer moves MS has made is rather telling imho as well. That he fired the guy who stymied the last attempt to produce a tablet version is well.....bewildering. Steve Sinofsky has been the windows group manager for quite some time now, he brought us windows 7, and prevented a windows 7 tablet, a good move imo, I can only imagine if they had tried this crap with windows 7, XP would STILL be the dominant OS if so, 12 years old and still the strongest, wouldn't that just be sad. Not being a team player may have had something to do with it, but he worked against and prevented a tablet version, and when they force one on him, and it flops, he's the one canned......smart move that was.

NetmarketShare.com would disagree with a 6% figure for win8 market share, though they do cite roughly 5% across all touch enabled windows variants:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=1

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

1.6% of smart phones running windows phone, a whopping 0.14% for windows tablets running touch or RT touch, and less than Even vista for Windows 8 overall, with only 3.31%, barely 1/30th of the market. yup, going awesome it is when a windows OS is losing to Linux. RT and touch are serious flops, and Win8 is no desktop oriented OS, nor is it a healthy launch.

It took windows 8 5 months to overtake Linux, which is unusual as well. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/152547-five-months-in-windows-8s-market-share-finally-surpasses-desktop-linux

Win 7 had 9% within 4 months of launch..... http://www.extremetech.com/computing/149762-four-months-in-windows-8-adoption-is-almost-at-a-standstill

even vista had a better launch than this, and I know far too many people that hated Vista, and some that still do(I liked it...)

Strategy Analytics is more kind. http://bgr.com/2013/04/24/tablet-market-share-q1-2013-462444/ Though its worth noting that Apple sold 7.7million more that quarter than previous, Android sold 11.6 million more than previous quarter, and windows sold 3 million more, though they had no sales previously. So they didn't really gain on apple or google so much as they merely did something. Both competitors moved further ahead of windows than windows even managed to do in terms of sheer quantity moved. of 40.6 million tablets sold, they got 3 million....and many an article cites, almost always with sources, OEM displeasure at MS tablets.

I understand the need to innovate, and MS can do this very well indeed. This isn't simply a case of poor implementation, its a case of poor strategy backed by poor implementation. might it have gone over better if the implementation was excellent? Maybe, but I doubt it. Might have been a good idea to not use the barely relevant Phone UI for the new PC UI, but hey, at 1.6% consumers MUST love it right? So here's an idea, lets force it on desktop users and not let them disable it and forget it ever happened.

Since they don't even have a group policy for workplaces to disable Metro, companies must either train their techs to deal with metro related support if they get win8 since employees will encounter it, or not get win8 at all, yup, MS is ever so clever. piss off consumer desktop users, piss off companies, whats next, servers?

why yes actually.....http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server-2012/microsoft-trying-kill-windows-server

Why in gods name does a server farm need a tablet UI?

Who have they left to screw with? Their empire is built on the desktop environment, and their playing jenga with its foundation. might pay off with a taller structure, might collapse entirely.

MS needs to stick to what they know, the desktop, and stay the hell away from tablets and phones. RIM, who brought us the blackberry very nearly went belly up not long ago, and they are still struggling to even keep their head above water let alone actually swim. Windows phone is only barely doing better, yup, healthy product that.

As far as im concerned, the only real reason for a home user to stick to MS is for gaming, or personal choice. If not for that, you can go go even cheaper and run linux, or go mac. with linux there is no need for antivirus, no cost for an OS, free office suites that are actually quite good, and generally better performance as linux is almost universally more lightweight. now that Steam supports linux, will gaming improve for linux users? i would think so. what does that do to Windows share if they lose the one thing they held hostage? Considering its pretty much the entire tech/enthusiast crowd thats bemoaning Win8, I can't think of it as anything other than a dismal failure from conception through to retail.

an early look at win 8.1 if anyones interested: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/151555-windows-blue-features-leaked-its-windows-8-with-more-snapping-less-desktop

and im even less impressed.

I do await what they do next for windows 9, should it be the next major design departure, or however many versions of little steps it takes them to do something significant, but I no longer hold hope really. Now its a matter of seeing how long win7 is viable, and whether or not Linux steps up and takes over gaming.

I just can't see how anyone can think this was a smart move on their part. its costing them, its costing their business users that adopt it, consumers aren't adopting it, it didn't help with the phones at all, and the tablets merely exist, they aren't thriving. A success story this is not.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Amram

[llamatoes]

I've only used it at a friend's, but I seriously think it was badly done for desktop. Don't get me wrong, I like using tablets, but I think iOS is better because it is idiot proof. And anyways, I really dislike using touch screens. And the Desktop UI is just a windows seven one.

[wolfedg]

I am currently running windows 8 and hated the interface so much that I downloaded a mod called classic shell. Now it looks like XP and runs like windows 7 so I guess after the mod its better than 7.

[Foamy]

I don't have the time to go into every point you made there and offer alternative viewpoints, I wish I did but I don't. There are good counter points for just about every thing you brought up, not that you're wrong about any of it, just different viewpoints and perspectives.

Microsoft's biggest weakness has been complete incompetence when dealing with consumers. They still have a huge amount of that in them and slightly disappoint at every turn. But gradually over the last 10 years things have been improving, they still have a long way to go but they have made a lot of progress.

I believe in MS's current vision a lot more than I believe in them as a company but they're my only hope right now. Google has trended downwards consistently in their behaviour, Apple is just on a completely different path to what I want.

There is a good chance MS can follow through with this though, and they need to be encouraged to do this. MS gets more FUD thrown at them these days than they dish out, that frustrates me because of the absolute hypocrisy that is celebrated by the linux/anti-MS community, it is childish and shameful. I'm not accusing you of this to any high degree though Amram, just pointing out that MS has a lot of bias against them. Any website which has 'death spiral' in the name of an article on MS has to be looked at with skepticism.

[Amram]

no worries, im not trying to be obstinate or anything, lol.

I've just never hated one of their decisions as much as I hate just about every major choice they made with win8. To me, its not even the implementation, its the very decision itself, its just......no.

I have liked their overall direction, and like you, don't like where Apple is going with things, never have, nor that their income appears to be from their hardware which they struggle to keep proprietary in some way. I like where Linux is going, but it hasn't gone nearly far enough in too many points for me to make the switch. And thats what worries me.

If MS keeps this direction going, and seriously screws up everything that has made it great to me, in the name of a game it appears they can't come out on top with based on pure economics and company philosophy and marketing, then im looking at having to hope linux takes over for gaming, and tolerate the transition where some games are found on both sides of the fence before it truly takes over completely.

regarding http://semiaccurate.com/2013/04/05/microsoft-windows-rt-price-cuts-dont-stop-death-spriral/, I did read the whole article, its not just a link grab, and it didn't strike me as all that anti microsoft as more of a how do you think this is going to work out in the end because it really doesn't look like it has any hope of that from the outside of the company. And to be fair, if you didn't hover over the link, they specifically bash windows RT more than just 8, and yeah, it is dying. its like throwing a bird up to release it, only this one doesn't know how to fly. Win8 has about 30 to 40 times the market share of WinRT and its not exactly flying off the shelves.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Amram

[macintux]

I will be using Windows 7 untill I am certain that the games I like to play can be run seamlessly on Linux (either natively or with something like Wine), or Microsoft pulls their head out of their bum, whichever comes first.

[xeon_1]

everything under the hood i am a fan of especially in the server versions

but the start menu is plain rubbish.

works terrible over a remote desktop connection over a vpn connection.

using local lan works okayish.

and in the multipoint server version some things don't even show up even when using show all apps.

need to use explorer.

not something i would like "dum" teachers doing.

but hyper-v /nic bonding/rsp infiniband/iscsi/new server manger like it all very much.

[Foamy]

My impression is that the devs know what to do but don't have the time to do a huge amount of little detail stuff, then the management decide that they need to move really quickly and be more ambitious, so we're left with an implementation that is broken at a lower level. If you want hope in this though you just have to look at Windows Phone, that was awful at the start, there was so much missing in the background it was almost unusably, now two years later there's only as couple of areas that need attention. Of the weak areas they were planned to be fixed for WP8 but they had such a big job rebuilding it on the Win8 kernel they ran out of time.

Microsoft's current implementation of Metro is terrible compared to the potential there, they can and will get it there eventually. People who say they hate Metro really only hate the current crappy realisation of it, I'm reasonably confident MS will pull it together over time.

[Amram]

Not entirly true.

I loathe its very concept.

I dont want larger and fewer icons. I like detail view, but its getting harder and harder to keep it.

I dont want to see the end of window(s), but that appears to be occuring given that many metro apps are fullscreen or nothing.

I dont like that media file sort is now 1-5 in a column with icons that give no names or file type. 6-10 in the next column. Whoever thought that up.

I dont want to see my information dense menus replaced by icon sparse windows.

I dont want a touch interface for my pc. The mouse keyboard interface are simply far superior for doing work of any sort.

I could go on for a very long time here. There is not one metro ui decision i do like. Quite simply, my problem with win 8 is not implementation, its the design philosophy at work, or if you'd rather, my problem is metro. A better implementation wont change that.

Simply put, my pc is not a phone, windows phone ui has no business being installed there in part or in whole, end of story for me.

I know i wasnt the sole target of the statement, but i also know im not alone.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Amram

[Foamy]

I dont want larger and fewer icons. I like detail view, but its getting harder and harder to keep it.

This is poor implementation not the core of the idea. This is an issue with only having a touch oriented Metro interface, making a Metro desktop is a bigger job and hasn't been attempted yet.

I dont want to see the end of window(s), but that appears to be occuring given that many metro apps are fullscreen or nothing.

This is just poor design choices optimised for touch.

I dont like that media file sort is now 1-5 in a column with icons that give no names or file type. 6-10 in the next column. Whoever thought that up.

This is just poor design choices and not reflective of the idea.

I dont want to see my information dense menus replaced by icon sparse windows.

This is just poor design choices optimised for touch.

I dont want a touch interface for my pc. The mouse keyboard interface are simply far superior for doing work of any sort.

This is just poor design choices optimised for touch. Metro design rules could make a superior desktop experience. It would also allow the interface to actually change dynamically to suit a touch screen, or a tablet, or a phone, without the actual design rules changing much and offering a unified and consistent experience.

I could go on for a very long time here. There is not one metro ui decision i do like. Quite simply, my problem with win 8 is not implementation, its the design philosophy at work, or if you'd rather, my problem is metro. A better implementation wont change that.

Metro does not mean touch, it means flat digital design. It means a clean consistent interface that is built from elements and rules that can easily adapt to changes in touch ability, screen size, etc.

A borderline good example of this is the office 2013 interface. It still gets a lot wrong but it shows that Metro can work for non touch (it is actually terrible for touch).

Simply put, my pc is not a phone, windows phone ui has no business being installed there in part or in whole, end of story for me.

I know i wasnt the sole target of the statement, but i also know im not alone.

This is completely true, the phone/mobile oriented interface has no place on the device while you are using it as a desktop PC. Just as Win 7 sucks on tablets and would be worse for phones. The greatness of the idea is that it has the potential to transition between modes as your usage changes. WP8 and Win RT are essentially the same operating systems just with different interfaces as they are for different devices. MS intends to bring them closer together so that they actually ARE the same OS just under different circumstances.

THe issue here is that MS has to get each interface right before they can work on merging them. I think WP8 is very close to being good enough, so is Win 8 although it is farther behind. Once they are both good enough, then just setting up rules for when different interface elements switch will be easy. Win 8 already shifts based on your screen resolution.

Transitioning from tablet style to desktop style is more difficult but it's not too bad. MS is already slowly moving the desktop towards the Metro style but the main reason for lack of progress here is that they are focusing on mobile interface because they already have Win 7 out there.

Here are some examples:

This concept shows some of the idea but it's not exactly what I'd imagine.

More

Here is Office 2013:

Bigger

I also love the Lync 2013 UI:

Edited April 27, 2013 by Foamy

[bigyihsuan]

In my opinion, I feel that Windows 8 is just Windows 7 with a Start Menu that has absolutely no use. I rarely use the Start Menu to do most of my computer stuff, so the Start Menu, IMO, is completely useless.

[dudester28]

Is there a way to downgrade from windows 8 to windows 7 or at least change the UI?

[Amram]

Dudester: nope, you format the drive and put windows 7 on it instead. I'd be much less against Win8 if metro could be ignored entirely.

Foamy:

Its not merely poor implementation, the decision that lead to that implementation is the problem. Some of those decisions can be traced back and start in windows Vista, 8 just takes the next step in the process. Others go back to the Phone UI, and that they thought it had any use as the new desktop OS is just absurd.

That everything is 'poor design due to optimised for touch' says it all imho. That they haven't even tried to make a desktop metro for the desktop OS is rather odd one might think.

Either way, I don't like the implied direction windows takes with those 'features'. Whether or not the implementation was ideal, if the decision to even try is what they wanted, I am against that.

The concept you linked states early on that they aren't reality, just a conceptual composition made by a user that's not MS affiliated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28design_language%29

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh465424.aspx

http://mashable.com/2012/03/29/microsoft-metro-is-a-philosophy/ especially #3. "...Design for touch,...."

Its not the implementation of Metro in its current form that is my complaint. My issue with Metro is in its design philosophy, in what guided the implementation. A 'better' implementation by the same principles is unlikely to satisfy me more. Its like someone telling you that the new CD by some rapper is better than their last one, when you can't stand rap int he first place, its still not something you want whether or not its 'better'.

Those principles need to change in some ways, or not be followed entirely in the right areas or i'll still be against it because it will still exhibit the traits I dislike. First and foremost, but certainly not the only detail, is an emphasis on touch and consistency in all places. To remain consistent across the code base, you need to remain consistent with a touch environment, they have already done this, look at the PC start screen and current apps. They have also tried to do away with the desktop, and did so with the start menu, two things a tablet would not have handled so well. So long as touch remains a core tenet of Metro, and they remain consistent across the interface despite the device, then the PC metro will show marked influence from touch.

If they don't, then you have two interfaces in action, and if they do that, then you have different behavior on laptops given that not all are touch, and that goes against the philosophy. Design for touch alone, give your users no choice, and when you control 93% of the computer market, it will be adopted by at least some whether or not they really like it. Funnily enough, this is what they have done so far.

...and that is what I loathe about 8.

regarding office 2013's interface, im not a fan, as im sure you might have guessed by this point. its just office in metro form.

In other news, i do have new reason to like Hyper-V. Did some more in-depth reading, and it seems Direct-X is fully supported, gaming on it should be more than merely possible. That i didn't know. However, its also quite likely that there will be performance issues related specifically to the virtualisation. Still, its about damned time. Fire up a VM with win-98 and play a game you haven't been able to play since you moved on to XP becomes something you can maybe finally do right. If they can correct the performance hits I think that will be a very nice feature indeed for a gamer looking to play something the current OS doesn't support. Given that in that role its likely used on out of date games anyways, I imagine the performance hits don't amount to all that much anyways. Whats only 40% performance out of your GPU when even that nets you 130fps. it even has native support of Linux. From microsoft that seems a bit surprising.

And it'll happily run on windows 7.

[Galacticruler]

32 people (me inculded) feel correct.

anyone else is insane, FAIL 8 is terrible.

.

Well said.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Galacticruler

[Foamy]

You say your main problem with Metro is that it's oriented for touch, Office 2013 is absolutely not oriented for touch. If you don't like Office 2013 then you simple don't like Metro, that's a personal thing and it's not Microsoft's issue.

MS has limited resources, it's not guaranteed that they will fix the desktop/mobile transition UX, but then it's also understandable that they haven't yet due to the time constraints and other things they've done.

If you just hate Metro as a design language then that's fine, but don't try to pretend that it is fundamentally broken as an idea. Everyone likes different things, Metro as an idea has a lot of fans (it's heavily influencing a lot of new websites, apps, and elements in other OS's), so you are mistaken if you think that your personal dislike of Metro is a major misstep by MS.

[Amram]

at no point have i said metro is fundamentally broken. I have said i don't like metro, for what it is, what its trying to be, and what its design language says it should be. Im fully aware thats all it is, I just don't like it. and i've said as much, review my posts.

what i have said is fundamentally broken as a concept is a phone UI for a desktop. That touch and metro seem to be something MS wants to intertwine for the desktop is not metro's fault, it is something I think to be stupid, mind bogglingly stupid.

I would think the market is speaking for itself, what with the windows 8 launch being a dismal failure. Every launch, including the all hated Vista has done better than 8 has. This even despite the dirt cheap price tag it launched with, what was it, $40?

The future will tell more than anything else, if Metro becomes optional, and we get the freedom to boot to the desktop directly without ever having to use the start screen, i'd consider 8, if I could get the start menu back as it was, without needing a third party app to put it back, then with all three I would likely be on board for using 8. There's much i dislike, but with those three out of the way the benefits might at least balance things.

That office is not touch friendly does not make metro not touch friendly, it simply makes Office not touch friendly. I did try to make it clear that I do not like metro, because it is metro, didn't I? The two are not even the same dev team, in a company notorious for its teams not communicating with each other.

Metro also has a very large number of opponents. being an aesthetic thing its going to be mixed opinions. Which is a big part of why i think it so absurd that this is the first of ANY windows OS to not give the user a choice in interface. here's metro, now deal with it. Even 3.1 gave more choice than this, what with loading direct to program manager, or to file manager as suited your taste.