See...there's the reason the direction of Win 8 was such a dud.  No-one will ever care that the OS is leaner/meaner....if they can't actually USE it.

8 was one or two steps forward from 7 ....but at the same time a few dozen steps backward....

Ah, but I actually do use it... Windows 8.... minus Metro... all day every day... 24/7, and I never see Metro unless I invoke it... much like a witch doctor does his demons, but more like a modern-day witch doctor.  I don't do all that old fashioned rolling my eyes to the back of my head or chanting or any of that stuff.  No, I just resonate internally while I meditate, then I press the Windows button on my keyboard to open Metro... then I say:"WhathapuckaveIdun!!!" in a Chinese accent [adds a bit of dramatic license to it] just prior to checking if there are any decent new apps I might want.

Seriously, I so rarely see Metro its almost irrelevant... so, if anybody lets Metro dictate to them as to how they run/manage their PC, then they're a bit of a goose.  However, my comment referred to a Metro UI only OS, which Win 8 is not, meaning that anyone with a bit of nous can use it to full effect if they so choose. So why all the resistance when Win 8 is as easy to use as 7? 

I'll tell you why, there's a determined bunch of stubborn old-worlders and afraid-of-changers out there who refuse to herald in the new because (a) the learning curve is too steep ( too stingy to purchase a new OS (c) I is too scared to touch that there shiny new fangled thing in case I breaks it, ya hear? (d) all of the above.  Then of course there's the haters... who don't even like themselves... and jump on the hate bandwagon because it's the only time they feel important/as one of the crowd.  Must lift their self-esteem/worth or something.

Win 9 won't cop all this flak and rejection cos all the haters, old-worlders and afraid-of-changers will be all plum tuckered out from dancing on Win 8's demise, but look out Win 10.  With the hate hiatus and old-worlders getting their breath back between editions, they're gonna come at you hard.... with some pundits in the press saying there will be blood, which is quite possible with hate sessions being so far apart and haters having nothing to vent at/over.  Frankly, I believe Microsoft should give them a mid-edition release to give them something to which they can let off steam, thus helping to blunt the haters assault on Win 10. 

I mean, I don't care what it is - perhaps pointing the finger at something Apple has done, now there's an old favourite - so long as the attack on Win 10 carries less venom than it otherwise would.  In fact, had MS released something mid-edition between 7 and 8, even if it was just a useless service pack that broke things, a security update that posted everybody's nude pics on Twitter, then perhaps the release of Win 8 would have been a welcome relief, something nice and warm and friendly.  I blame Ballmer for this... for everything else that went wrong at MS in the most recent years, and given sales of Win 8 surpassed 200 million just the other day, I reckon millions of other agree and are glad he's gone... now watch MS get its foot off the brake and slip into overdrive.

Yeah, but most regular PC users don't have 6 monitors... nor your whopping 'lectric bill. Good to see ya, Jim... me has been dabbling with DX and themes, etc.

Thing is, a Metro only OS is never going to happen. It really would upset to many people, influential and otherwise, and would be corporate suicide, which I don't see happening on the new CEO's first watch... will have to look it up shortly but I'll be buggered if I can remember his name, not for the life of me.  Anyway, a CEO with more of a tech background will be good for MS going forward, unlike Ballmer, who was more a corporate big-wig and didn't have a clue how to manage a tech oriented company.

My first choice for a hands-on CEO would have been Bill Gates himself... again, but this new guy, Satya Nadella looks promising as Steve Ballmer's replacement and I hope he does well for MS... which in turn should be good for us... via great and innovative new products.

BTW, I'm not normally the great optimist, so grab what there is with both hands while its still there.  

Well not entirely, otherwise the familiar desktop simply wouldn't have been included... and they wouldn't have manufactured Surface tablets with the full Win 8 OS.  No, Ms would have stuck with RT versions across the board, had that been the intent.  The intent was more to develop a single, easy to synch, platform for all devices, the PC, tablets and phones.  The thing is, the majority of desktop users rejected the Metro UI, which really is nothing more than a glorified start menu, but more restrictive imuo  [in many users opinions]

I like the Metro UI on my phone, and I'd surely like it on a tablet as well, but I'm not too fussed with it being on my desktop, which is why it is disabled unless I want it for something.  There are a few apps I like and use, and the Metro Ui is a good place to go to catch up on world news, tech news and entertainment news, but for the most part I just don't see it cos I'm too busy doing stuff on the desktop.

Windows 8 : A basically good operating system with a metro carbuncle on its nose.

Thank heavens, then, we can avoid it entirely and use Win 8 as a standard OS doing standard things.  I've been telling people this for a long time, that with Start8, they could use Win 8 the same way as they did Win 7, only faster.  But then I'd get "but why should I have to use 3rd party software to make it usable?"  My response to that was "why use Windowblinds, why use Iconpackager or CursorFX, then... why use any 3rd party software at all, if Microsoft didn't include it in the first place?"

The answer to that was "it should work right out of the box" and I said "it does, you just have to learn a few new things to get the most out of it, or you can get Start8 and use Windows as you always have"  However, the grumbling never ceases, no matter how many times it's shown that Win 8 is just as easy to use, I get the same old arguments again and again and again, like they don't want to upgrade/try Win 8 out because some expert in the media said they shouldn't.... and we know how everything the media says is gospel, don't we.

Funny thing is, some of those Win 8 haters are now using Win 8... now how funny is that?  I purchased a copy the first day of release and haven't looked back.  Though I have 2 copies of Win 7 Pro x64 at my disposal, Win 8 has been the only OS of choice since day of initial purchase, with a 2nd copy being purchased for my 2nd machine... though I may have to relent and install Win 7 on the 3rd machine I keep for visitors, but then that's probably best, given how hard <insert sarcasm here> Win 8 is to get used to.

Yeah, I thought so too, and while I'm not so fond of Metro on my desktop, using it very occasionally, I can see the reasoning behind it.  I found the comments below the article interesting also.  While there were the regular and expected haters, there were quite a few people who actually like Metro and use it frequently/all the time... suggesting that Win 8 is not the failure some would have us believe.

That's what I have been saying all along... that Win 8 is not that difficult to use, make usable.  However, while you may not feel the upgrade from W7 to W8 is of benefit to most users, Win 8 does utilise hardware better, especially in a UEFI environment, and therefore is generally faster than 7... meaning programs load faster and there a fewer freeze ups, etc.... not to mention that it loads quicker. 

These are benefits that some users may find advantageous, others may not, so it is the end user who must decide if an upgrade from Win 7 is warranted or not.  However, and upgrade from earlier editions: Vista; 2000; ME; XP and older, well an upgrade to Win 8 would be a considerable improvement on hardware less than 5 years or so old.

I did read somewhere that Win 8 cannot maximise, take advantage of hardware much older than this because older processors weren't designed with multi-threading and multiple cores on which it can draw.  I think that's why a lot of people were disappointed with Win 8, especially those with single and dual core CPUs.  It was not the fault of the OS, but rather that the hardware was too old to make the best use of.  I know of one member here who discovered this when he installed Win 8 on his older machine... it ran slower than Win 7 because his CPU couldn't deliver the power Win 8 requires to operate at full potential. Hopefully he can resolve this in the near future and experience Win 8 as it should be.

Yes, I agree, most users with a stable, fast running Win 7 machine wouldn't be able to justify the cost of upgrading, but there is a minority of users who either require or like the additional speed and responsiveness.  I happen to be one of those users, and once I trialled the beta versions it was a no-brainer for me to upgrade... because I do benefit from the improvements W8 has to offer.  Different horses for different courses, as they say, and not everyone will share my requirements, wants, or opinions with regard to Windows 8.

I think too, that the UEFI BIOS is another significant factor where Win 8 is concerned.  While W8 runs well on a Legacy BIOS, it runs so much better when installed on a UEFI BIOS, particularly when installed as a UEFI OS.  So perhaps users with the older Legacy Bios were just not seeing the much improved speed and responsiveness, and therefore downgraded to Win 7 because it was more familiar to use. 

Obviously different people have different thoughts, needs and reasons, but it would be interesting to find out what they were/are regarding Win 8.  Maybe somebody could set up an online survey to ascertain the answers to all these questions... hint, hint to anyone interested and with the means to do so.