Windows 8 Why Windows 8 Needs Metro

While I agree that MSFT needs to evolve to survive, putting Metro on top of the Windows desktop should not be characterized as brilliant. It's merely necessary. It's the obvious thing to do if you are starting with a legacy OS and you want to continue to provide legacy compatibility while also embracing the future of computing. It's also clumsy; it brings with it a lack of purity. Apple also had a legacy OS, but they made a clean break and created a more pure touch-based OS. MSFT cannot simply do this due to the size of its installed base and the fact that there are already two strong competitors in the market for pure touch-based operating systems/gadgets (Apple's iOS and Google's Android). Apple made their break when there was no other to oppose them and therefore they had time to gain traction. MSFT doesn't have that time, so it will get its new paradigm out there by including it for free along with every copy of its OS upgrade. It's relying upon a semi-captive audience to gain market share for its new touch enabled OS (semi-captive because it's merely a pain to move away from a long-used OS, but not impossible, so plenty of folks will take Windows 8 and get Metro along with it). MSFT's strategy is apparent in the way it has closely incorporated Metro into Windows 8, forcing users into some unwieldy machinations in order to use the OS without interacting with Metro. This is not brilliant. Rather, it's insidious and almost malevolent.