Would you rather they had just left out the ability to run Metro apps on the desktop, and made Windows 8 an "incremental" release, like Apple does with OS X? (or really, like Windows 7 was compared to Vista)
The problem isn't Metro per se. It's the fact that the majority of "Windows" users, use it on a desktop. And on a desktop, I'll venture that Metro apps are entirely useless. Yup, completely useless. And they forced Metro on the desktop users. Major bone of contention. Now, that would still have been tolerable, assuming they kept the usual and typical functions of Windows, where they are, instead of splicing them into Metro. Seriously...the "shutdown" action is so freaking obscure in Windows 8, that it is laughable. Does Microsoft realize how much people use that on a desktop??
If they had at least kept these kinds of actions in their usual places, I think there would have been a bit less backlash.
Other than the Start Screen, anything else "Metro" in the OS is entirely optional without needing any modifications,
No it's not. Read above.
and there are free tools that bring back the old Start Menu if you prefer that. (or you can pay $3-5 if you don't want to spend any time configuring things with Start8/Start is Back)
I don't trust some 19 yr old kid writing code in his garage (not that that's the case, but you get my point. Who knows what kind of regression testing is done on these "utilities"?) for my business (and personal) software. For something as important as the freaking Start menu, I want super optimized, super stable, super tested code, direct from Microsoft. This is not negotiable.
Maybe Microsoft should have made the Metro Start Screen optional in this version,
You're absolutely right sir.
and removed the Start Menu in Windows 9 instead, as that probably wouldn't have been such a "scary" proposition for people that are set in their ways, but then you have a far more fragmented experience.
For desktop usage, it will always be debatable, if this kind of move makes sense, but time will tell. If they wanted "progress", I'd much rather have the option of better voice recognition and just speaking the program/action I want launched...
And really, the Metro start screen is barely any different from Apple's Launchpad
, which is basically the iOS home screen on the desktop - but without the ability to run iOS apps, and it doesn't boot into that by default rather than showing you the desktop. It should also be noted that OS X never had any equivalent to the Start Menu, and moved to using Search as the preferred way of launching applications a long time ago. (OS X Tiger launched in April 2005) I think the Start Screen is far more successful on the desktop than Launchpad is.
If I was tied into the Microsoft ecosystem of phones and tablet devices, being able to run those apps on my computer as well is a huge advantage, even if the experience is not identical to using desktop applications.
My personal view is that there is no comparison between OSX/iOS and Windows. Two different platforms/ideologies and two different user bases with different expectations.
I hate that with Apple I often have to buy three separate apps to get the phone, tablet and desktop versions. Often that ends up costing in the region of $25-30, and there are a number of desktop apps that are really no better than the tablet one, despite a significant price hike. When you put them into fullscreen mode - which Apple has been pushing heavily for the last few years - they are no different from the tablet version. If I were able to buy one RSS reader for $3 that ran on my phone, tablet and desktop for example, that would be a huge improvement. Or maybe I don't use the desktop version of an app enough to warrant spending $10-20 on it compared to a $3 tablet app, if it's sufficient.
Now, you see the genius behind Apple's marketing and success in the last few years?
They nickle and dime you to death.
The problem is that I'm locked into iOS for my mobile devices (nothing else offers the breadth of software) and Apple is distancing themselves from Windows again. (Safari appears to be dead, which basically killed bookmark syncing for me)
Bingo. And you'll keep paying Apple the $1, $5 here and there...
Vista sold 20M copies in its first month, and Windows 7 sold double that. If you look at that data, I bet projections for Windows 8 were stupidly high.
Combine that with all the FUD surrounding Windows 8, that the Surface pales in comparison to the iPad (the only interesting thing about it is the kick-stand, which I wish my iPad had) and the fact that we are past the point where computers need upgraded on a regular basis (any computer bought in the last 5 years is fast enough to do anything the average user wants) means it's hardly surprising news.
No disagreement there, but it is still a product release from Microsoft, and (according to them) one of the biggest ones. Expectations were and are rather high.
I know a lot of people that upgraded their systems when Windows 7 came around, but now with Windows 8 actually running faster and being more efficient than Windows 7 was, those people have absolutely no need to upgrade their system again, and they're not the kind of people that are likely to reinstall or upgrade their OS.
My view is that those gains are "nice to have" but certainly not critical. I have no compelling reason to upgrade my home/business/customers to Windows 8.
Though if Microsoft had priced the upgrade at $20 like Apple does with OS X, or if $15 was the standard upgrade price rather than the "I just bought a PC with Windows 7" price, I'm sure they would be running 8 already.
uhhh....Windows is the Cash Cow...
If they start dropping the price on that, Microsoft is screwed.