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

Let's consider that ideas for a moment, we'll tell the users to constantly switch back and forth from the Desktop screen to the Start screen. Hmmm...That sounds plausible doesn't it. Let's see it's not here so let's go look over there. Well, it's not there either, now let's use on of the "hidden" features (i.e. non-visible) to place it on one of those two screens and try to remember where it is. This instead of using a simple desktop and/or the Task Bar to store all the shortcuts I use every day. What a grand idea that is.

(Just so you know, the sarcasm is directed at Microsoft, not you.)

   Even though I enjoy this little tet-a-tet, the main point is "Choice" which is something everyone is asking for. Will there be a downside to that choice, presumably, Yes. But allow the users to make that choice themselves. It simply appears to many of us that Microsoft is trying a one-size-fits-all approach with their new offerrings which many disagree with. And as you can probably surmise at this point, I happen to agree that this approach seems somewhat shortsighted.

XP always ran appreciably better on budget machines if the Classic theme was selected.

Vista was slow as molasses, and the slick look didn't help one bit. It didn't help that the Vista era saw a major shift to home users buying laptops with less than good integrated video either. A visit to 'Performance....' in Control Panel always showed that performance could be increased by knocking out some or all of the slick features. 

Windows 7 was given the Aero theme because speed was clawed back from other areas, but still the 'Perfromance.....' utility in Control panel advised removal of some or all of Aero if the user wanted to get more overall performance.

So, now Microsoft have an OS which looks the same across the various platforms and will perform well across the various platforms, assuming that the screen resolution is greater than 1024 x 600. It makes economic sense for Microsoft and the end user, neither having to pay top dollar to get all that the OS promises.

The Windows 8 interface is flat, but I would not call it 'distracting' exactly, especially in Windows 8 app mode where there are NO borders..

XP always ran appreciably better on budget machines if the Classic theme was selected.

Vista was slow as molasses, and the slick look didn't help one bit. It didn't help that the Vista era saw a major shift to home users buying laptops with less than good integrated video either. A visit to 'Performance....' in Control Panel always showed that performance could be increased by knocking out some or all of the slick features.

Windows 7 was given the Aero theme because speed was clawed back from other areas, but still the 'Perfromance.....' utility in Control panel advised removal of some or all of Aero if the user wanted to get more overall performance.

So, now Microsoft have an OS which looks the same across the various platforms and will perform well across the various platforms, assuming that the screen resolution is greater than 1024 x 600. It makes economic sense for Microsoft and the end user, neither having to pay top dollar to get all that the OS promises.

The Windows 8 interface is flat, but I would not call it 'distracting' exactly, especially in Windows 8 app mode where there are NO borders.. Well, is branding more important than user satisfaction if your branding makes me hate your brand? I don't care if it's flat or shiny. I want things arranged and functioning on my desktop like they have always done without a problem. Microsoft has created a problem and doesn't want to fix it because some marketing **** slobbered about cross-platform branding during a meeting and some fool bought it.

"Well, is branding more important than user satisfaction if your branding makes me hate your brand? I don't care if it's flat or shiny. I want things arranged and functioning on my desktop like they have always done without a problem. Microsoft has created a problem and doesn't want to fix it because some marketing **** slobbered about cross-platform branding during a meeting and some fool bought it."

That (the bold text) is what Windows 3.1 users said about Windows 95.

Decisions for the Windows 8 UI were made which have proved to be less than popular, and Microsoft has Windows Blue in the wings, full content unknown as yet, with which to make amends.

If Microsoft provides the Start menu, can you give us a preview of the next 'can't do without or I will buy a Mac' feature you consider to be missing and/or so desperately important?

   Let's consider that ideas for a moment, we'll tell the users to constantly switch back and forth from the Desktop screen to the Start screen. Hmmm...That sounds plausible doesn't it. Let's see it's not here so let's go look over there.

 

I don't get you. You say that it is faster to have all the icons on the desktop and taskbar. I say that you can do exactly the same on windows 8. And you reply saying that we are telling users to constantly switch back and forth? Either you have some reading comprehension issues or you are winding me up.