Yes, that's about right, but again I'd stress the frustration/negativity felt towards 8 has nothing to do [here] about its APPEARANCE but about its ergonomics.

Yes, a GUI is "what you see" of an OS ...but more importantly it is how you INTERFACE.

8's 'interface' was/is lifted directly from a small, hand-held object called a 'smart-phone'....designed specifically for one-handed operation by touch.

A WORK computer is not a 'smart-phone' and thus requires an interface of PARTICULAR characteristics as what has [correctly] EVOLVED over decades...to a point where 7 is the pinnacle [so far]....and 8 is an avalanche down the other side....

Well said Jafo. Good point. 

Aye, Windows 8 - just like a Yorkshire woman... great body but a face like a bag of spanners...

8 isn't a good desktop os? i'm using it on my desktop just fine. do i have a touchscreen monitor? nope. i do have a logitech touchpad that i use instead of a mouse these days. i can make the finger swipes and gestures just like a touchscreen would enable. 8 works like a charm here.

jafo, i respect your opinion on most things but not on this. it seems you're attempting to make those of us who like and use 8 that we are wrong in doing so.

also, i highly doubt kona has ever used 8 so why was the thread posted to begin with. wait! i know. it's just kona being kona again.

And here I thought you were only kidding in reply #105.

I have Windows 8 installed. Or did you forget that point? Yes I have used it more than once. 

I love it when you're so PC, Fuzz.

LOL....at #148

...but I was thinking more like MS Bob ....

rather Babya System.

nothing wrong with a flat look for me. i think the latest versions of ChromeOS look gorgeous for example.

but in Windows 8 it is done so half-assed, it's laughable. did they run out of time to create a matching icon theme? why do the desktop icon texts still have that dark dropshadow? what's that nonsense with the huge window borders (they are still too small for touch anyways)? why still keeping that scrollbar buttons, does anybody use those (that chevron is the ugliest thing i have seen since a while in a default os look)? if that should be touch-optimized why is there almost no padding on the notification area icons?

nah, this is just the beta version of Windows 9. 

Well, I think part of the reason that there are two "styles" is that W8 was intended to be a panacea of sorts for OSes, one that worked both for desktops and mobile devices...

In theory, you can operate almost entirely in the "desktop" styled part of the OS or almost entirely in the "mobile" styled part of the OS...desktop users get their desktop (with the more conventional style that W7 has) and mobile users get their mobile stuff (with the tiles, metro look)...

Of course, in practice most desktop users are going to have to use the metro start screen for something beyond selecting desktop at startup....and I think that's where most of the problem is....if desktop people really could completely avoid all the metro stuff, I don't think we'd have too many criticism of W8....

Of course they can with 3rd party software but that's not the ideal way to make an OS...

I personally like the start screen as I find it more efficient....that said, the inconsistent style is a little bothersome, if still tolerable...most importantly, if W8 really achieved its "panacea" goal, I wouldn't have to use the start screen unless I wanted to....

Just my two cents:

I set up my coworkers Win8 laptop.  At first, my reaction was "what the heck have they done?"  Having used computers all my life, I couldn't make heads or tails of Win8...at first.  Once I realized that the Start menu is now a full-blown screen, and I can get my desktop with the touch of a button, once I realized I could remove apps, rearrange them, well...Win8 is kind of cool.

I can see both sides of the experience.  For me, it took a day or two to settle into Win8.  Epic fail?  A little extreme.  It's Win7 with a facelift, as far as I'm concerned.  Will I pay to get it? No, but I didn't pay for Win7; I bought a new PC.

Just my two cents.

Exactly ....

An OS shouldn't be such a 'Jack-of-all-trades-and-a-master-of-none' and require people to seek third party solutions to their [Microsoft's] arrogance/ineptitude/whichever.

Again... Stardock is quite pleased all the same... whilst people at MS are likely riding that 'express elevator to hell....going down...' ...

hell would be a couple floors up for these folks ... 

and anyone putting their fingers on my monitor will join them 

Actually you did pay for Windows. It was added on to your purchase price of that new computer. You just didn't realize it. 

Until W8.1 (Blue) comes in and *poof* they've put back the start button (and maybe more). That will leave SD holding the bag, and that really bothers me... MS dropped the ball, SD saw an opportunity and put the time in to dev the fix, and then MS fixes their OS. Grrrr.

Dr it might depend on how MS handles W8.1, as a Service Pack update or a paid for OS update.  Which would be a first for MS, right?

As hopefully amusing trivia I think MS charged for its "upgrade" from Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.1.  Could be wrong, had to go deep into the cobwebs for that one.  Anyway I suppose anything is possible.

And now I realize you may very well have been joking ... well anyway, what the heck.

Yes...I think you're right...and I think the same applied to 3.11 too ...

Ah I'd forgotten about 3.11.  They really kind of triple-dipped the chip there didn't they?