Why would Microsoft remove the beautiful Aero Glass effect and replace it with flat colors and cheesy translucency?

I simply cannot fathom why Microsoft would have tossed the rich UI experience from Windows 7

in favor of such a flat, 2D experience as we now have with Windows 8 Metro. I've been a developer

using Microsoft products for over 30 years and seen all of the mistakes that Microsoft released

over the years, but this one is probably at the top of that list. But, just to make sure I wasn't

being one of those "Stuck in the mud" types when it comes to something new, I shared the Metro

desktop with friends, customers and family to get their initial thoughts. The response was

overwhelming. Not a single person I spoke with will even consider Windows 8, ever. Some of

my customers even made the statement that they would rather switch their business OS to a

Linux distro rather than using Windows 8.

   Microsoft has stated repeatedly that the new UI has much less resource and CPU/GPU requirements

than previous UI releases, which in turn makes the OS faster. Microsoft has also stated in releases

that the Metro UI makes significantly more sense for the Tablet and Phone OSes since neither platform

has the processing power to support the richer UI. Although both of these statements make sense from

a certain standpoint, they still miss the mark when dealing with a Desktop UI experience. Most

desktops, from the $300-$400 entry models to the very powerful workstation and gaming systems

have more than enough CPU/GPU available to handle the resource and processing requirements that

a rich UI (such as Aero) demands.

   Another way to look at this is from the Users perspective. Simply show any number of users

Metro side by side with any Rich UI (Aero, Gnome, KDE, Mac, etc.) and ask them which they would

prefer to have on their desktop. The results are what you would expect, Metro loses hands down.

Users like the rich UI no matter what the cost in processing. The most common responses I received

from my little show-and-tell session was "Why does it look so flat?". Second to that was "It reminds

me of something from the 1990's". And in reference to the new Start screen "But my system doesn't

have a touch screen so why would I want that?"

   The new Metro desktop is designed around a "Touch Screen" experience which is great for the

smaller hand held devices such as a Phone or Tablet but it completely dismisses the everyday

Desktop user. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the everyday desktop user is

no longer an important consideration. We all know about the rise of the hand-held market, but

the Desktop is still at the top of the heap for both Home and Office use. While many business

users also employ a hand-held device on the road, once they are back in the office the Desktop

is still the primary device used simply because it can handle many more simultaneous tasks.

   Hopefully Microsoft will take a hint at the recent declines in PC sales from the major PC

manufacturers. This is a direct response from both Business and Home users that states simply

"We don't like (and don't want) Windows 8 and Metro". Every one of my friends, family and

customers have decided to cancel any purchases until they can buy Windows 7 instead of Windows 8

with the new PC(s) of their choice.

   Are you listening Microsoft?

I must be the only one that, when using the desktop, doesn't notice much of a difference on how windows look. incredible how much people react on minor changes of rounded corners and transparency, instead of focussing on the actual functionality.

.. And functionality on the smaller machines being used by consumers these days requires that resource consuming effects like Aero are not used..

Functionality is a good point to make, but how many users are concerned with that?

I can honestly say, with few exceptions, 99% of users don't use and aren't aware of

most of the "Functionality" available in any version of Windows. Or any OS for that

matter.

   Let's take the average business user for example. The ones I've spoken with are

primarily concerned with two(2) things. Aesthetics and Usability. In other words,

how does it appeal visually and how fast can I get my job done. The Metro Start

screen as a replacement significantly limits desktop space. i.e. I can't see as

much as I used to (the average business desktop's screen is much smaller than the

average Home users). This means they have to scroll/search for their task many times

during the day. Let's say it adds 5 seconds to the startup time for their application(s)

and they do this five(5) times during the day. That's seems small, only 50 seconds

per day, right? Multiply that times the number of employees, say 25 (it's a small

company). Now we're at 1,250 seconds per day. Multiply that times work days in a

month and you get ~27,125 seconds or ~452 minutes (almost 8 hrs/month or 96 hours

per year). You can see how this additional cost can adversely affect any size business,

right? And of course, that scenario gets worse the more users you have.

  Now let's think of the average home user. All you have to do is walk around your

local electronics store and watch the perspective buyers react to the new interface.

It's not pretty. Think of this, I want to watch a video and that flat (insert color

of your choice here) border is visible. Talk about distracting, right? Since it

appears that a step backwards has been taken (aesthetically speaking) you also

get questions like, Can it still handle my pictures and videos like it used to?

You see, unfortunately aesthetics do matter to the masses.

most used applications should be pinned to the desktop taskbar anyway, so I fail to see how that example is realistic. it takes me the same time to open any application on w8 or w7.

start // type// enter.

or

its pinned to the taskbar

if you say that you need to scroll the start screen, you'd also need to scroll the start menu for other programs... why do you think that this is faster? it isn't.

as for the average home user, most of them have the funniest reasons to say they don't like it. I especially like the ones that say "W8 is **** because it doesn't have the same games like it did before". really? also, most people just go towards the peer pressure thing. if the interwebs says it sucks, they believe it and give it no chance nor any attempt to learn how it works. it then becomes cool to hate. also very visible on these forums is people being very vocal about "missing functionality" that they simply haven't bothered to try to find. "this is shiiiiiiit" they say. then you point out where things are, and they either don't come back or find another thing to complain about, as they feel their pride is hurt.

its a very interesting sociological phenomenon...someone should study it.