Like Mitchell_A, I have tried hard to use Windows 8 in its original concept, and have now become more accustomed to the Metro "Interface"
I prefer that word "Interface". I am not, so far, regarding the metro "interface" as a desktop. I am aware that Microsoft are constantly referring to it as such, but, if it were so, then why, after using an app, are we returned to the more familiar legacy desktop, and not to the Metro screen?
For this reason only, I am using the latest release of "Classic", which in the familiar surroundings of the legacy desktop, could sometimes be more convenient. However, I find myself using that feature less, as time goes by, and usually just give the one click return to the Metro.
Very few users actually have a regular need for the mass of applications which were in the old menu, particularly when accompanied by the usual third party applications. I, so far, as I said previously, am regarding the metro screen as a graphical start menu. If you remove those items which are rarely used (they are still available, instantly, - "All Apps"). you have a reasonable, uncluttered, graphical start menu. You even have your start button, but now hidden, should you be returned to the desktop - swish, bottom left corner, or the Windows key.
Metro, I agree, in its present form, is not the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. But, hopefully, this is one of the areas of self customisation which MS will improve before the next release.
For reasons connected to my work mode, and multi tasking, I am not comfortable so far, using pure Metro applications which go full screen. This also, is not a problem. I have uninstalled the majority, and the "Store" items have plenty of suitable standard, non-metro alternatives.
I see a huge percentage of posters on forums, who offer up incredibly cluttered desktops, or taskbars. The OP himself will admit to this? Perhaps I have the wrong perspective on it, but how can this possible be an advantage to the straight and direct use of the Metro screen? (Except, of course, for those with that taste, it is no longer possible to have those beautiful picture desktops as a background?)
Operationally, now benchmarks are beginning to pop up, and on my own amateur tests, there is, without argument, a marginal performance improvement. imo, I do not see that improvement as anything to be too excited about. In fairness, it does seem to be more by rearrangement of background services or, for that matter, earlier items which were constant in the background. I felt at the time that these small changes could have been adjusted with a Windows 7 SP, but, as it would have needed major kernel alterations, perhaps not. Certainly, for those who are thinking of purchasing - in particular large company buyers, I would not see that it could warrant the expense, if, at present, they are comfortable with Windows 7.
P.S.
Quote "Hey I'm the oldest person here and I like change, I'm the first person to try everything, I've beta tested dozens of games, one of the first to run Windows 7 and here I am getting ready to go with Windows 8, I may also be one of the first to have a Microsoft Pad if it lives up to the hype.
No slamming old people
Right on!! But, maybe the second oldest? I am 78, still testing furiously. LOL