Windows 7: Is 'Metro' now a banned word at Microsoft?

IMHO it's all about 2 things - 1, change - a majority of humans are opposed to anything new, they are used to dealing and working with something that works for them and their situation. A smaller proportion of people who accept and welcome change and new methods, will work to overcome any problems. Then eventually many will happily accept the results of these endeavours, whilst others will continue to oppose the new. It's called an entrenched position and I may have been guilty of that error myself.

2 - Most computer users are unskilled in computing, who only need to turn on and use the machine. They are not interested in having to solve problems with drivers, or setting up a new operating system. They just want it work "out of the box". Vista did not do that, it was a departure from the XP they had grown used to. 7 worked much better in that regard, I know users like that who hated Vista and loved 7. To quote one of them, it's like Microsoft used Vista to show us how good 7 was in comparison. Same person loves the way that 7 sets up her peripherals, asking if she wants drivers and setting them up.

I would certainly agree with that. As a matter-of-fact, that's part of my problem with Windows or anything else. If you don't believe me, ask my wife--She'll tell you the same thing.

That's the whole truth being said...

Well...
This answers this one in particular, this people will be SCREAMING nd begging for Windows 7 to be reinstalled on their systems as soon as possible... We can't spect everyone to know how to use and setup a virtual machine... and some people (like me) also need to work at home.

That's right, but Linux has an open source kernel, which means that people can release enhacement tools without guessing, because they already know how to handle kernel and deep system changes, with Windows is almost a trial and error, even if in the most part of the time those changes are harmeless...

Also, Linux is known to be customizable since the beggining and that, if you want something, you change it by yourself. Windows is designed to run in PC's for people that knows nothing about this, that's the reality.

And this sir. Is the whole truth, it seems they never hear feedback even from people that tested the RP, instead rushing releases with no testing...

See ya!!

I have Win 8 installed on VMware Player. Every time I open it I say to myself, “Why in the h### am I doing this?” Actually, I don’t know. So here’s one question that I would like an answer to: Unless a person is using one of those hand held instruments, what is the advantage of Windows 8 over windows 7?

For most people , there is no advantage at all.

I have to assume they DID think through "this whole desktop experience".

They simply came to a different conclusion based on thinking it through than you or I would.

I can't believe MS doesn't acknowledge internally that there will be major howling from typical desktop and corporate users.

The only semi-plausible explanation is that they are not really targeting corporations or home builders or enthusiast desktop users.

Rather, they are targeting tablets and relying on OEMs to force-feed it pre-installed to desktop/laptop buyers. I suspect the OEMs will get to field all the support questions from Joe Sixpack when he unpacks the Dell and says WTMFH is going on.

I think it's a bad decision, but not mysterious. Quite possibly borne out of desperation at trailing in tablets and the relative stagnation of the desktop market.

I would have to agree with you on this, but my question is, why can't Microsoft release two different versions of Windows 8. One set up for PCs and the other for tablets, instead of trying to force the issue. I tried out Windows 8 comsumer release on my PC and after making a few tweaks it was usable, but I won't upgrade from Windows 7 simply because I do not care for Metro, or whatever name their trying to call it now.

They can, as far as I know. I haven't heard a programmer type say it's not feasible.

Apparently they won't.

Why wouldn't they?

Only halfway understandable reason I can see is corporate pride (read "hubris")---showing they can enforce their will and won't be cowed into complying with the requests of mere rube users like you and I. Rank paternalism---daddy knows best.

Eat your spinach.

And there may be an element of feigned disdain rather than true disdain for the desktop market. I can imagine some high-level meetings at MS wherein whistling past the graveyard might be seen as cool, particularly if championed by a big cheese---who is likely surrounded by sycophants.

It becomes more understandable to the extent that desktop/laptop users are not the target and to the extent that OEMs will take the brunt of the complaints.

Five years from now we can judge if the disdain was justified.

Is a button interface on a normal desktop system intuitive? Are they contemplating mass replacement with touch screen desktops? Why would one want buttons on a non-touchscreen desktop?

To get my fingerprints covering a nice monitor panel?