>In one respect, Miller is saying that Windows 8 was the price we had to pay to get to a smoother and friendlier Windows 9. If so, is that really the best way t

>In one respect, Miller is saying that Windows 8 was the price we had to pay to get to a smoother and friendlier Windows 9. If so, is that really the best way to treat your customers? Does Microsoft need to force-feed us a not-so-good version of Windows before we can get something better? Or was Windows 8 an unnecessary slip-up on the road to the future? What a load of trash. People need to stop judging Microsoft products in terms of unreleased products. I understand that the hackers et al. who use the power features in Windows are upset that MS changed the game on them, but putting Metro as the forefront of the UI was, as the article describes, a necessary step in getting users to actually use it. Metro UI is quite good for browsing content and navigating to the things that you're certain to want. It's good looking and it works pretty well. Just because it's your launch screen doesn't mean it's supposed to be the only tool you ever need. If you log on to windows 8 to check facebook, it's awesome. If you log on to manage hard drive partitions, you're going to need to be looking elsewhere. Microsoft is trying to make products for the consumer market. If you want to blame anybody for Metro, blame Apple. iOS and other simple, clean user experiences showed consumers that there is a better way than the old desktop standards. The applications you want can be at your fingertips, instead of in a button in the corner. Microsoft HAD to make the initial experience of the UI simpler to stay competitive in the modern market for personal computing.