> Everyone hates change and would love to go back, until they actually do go back. The status quo is familiar and therefore seems more efficient. It's "muscle memory". The current desktop system is a metaphor that never really played out.

This is largely quite true. I was probably one of the few people among my peers who actually appreciated the new taskbar introduced in Windows 7. Although that's not to say that criticism of Windows 8 isn't important; I think one of the things Microsoft did learn with the Windows 7 betas and release candidates was that feedback from the user base can very occasionally be helpful. In some exceptional cases, monitoring user feedback can short-circuit certain disaster.

The other thing to keep in mind is that change for the sake of change isn't always good--and likewise, it isn't always bad. Paradigm shifts will happen, things will change, and sometimes legacy designs will continue to persist for wont of familiarity. What I'm saying is this: Changing too much too drastically is a bold move. It might pay off; it might also be disaster.

My personal preference is to agree with apg; the developer preview was less than stellar, but my expectations weren't terribly high. I don't really like the paradigm shift Microsoft is trying to force across the Windows brand as it exists for a desktop OS, but it might be great for what it was designed for--tablets and phones.

It should be said that I also didn't care much for Unity even though I gave it an honest try for about two-three weeks. There were some things that it did well--and were equally quite handy--and there were others that felt too jarring and awkward. Metro feels somewhat similar in that regard. However, I'll reserve my full judgement until we're closer to a more finalized product so we can see what Microsoft's vision ultimately boils down to; thusfar, I'm not terribly impressed, but I admit they're making a decent effort. I do look forward to seeing the finished product even if I absolutely hate it. :)

I'm going to make the opposite argument. I think the current batch of Start Menu, dock, and panel launchers represent the product of continuous refinement. I honestly question whether the interface can truly be improved (versus made different) for current desktop interfaces. By current desktop interfaces, I mean a monitor, mouse, and keyboard. Right now, there no interface better for accomplishing real work on a computer.

Tablets and future, immersive, physically interactive interfaces (e.g. "virtual reality") will certainly be different, but I don't see why we should completely warp our well-established paradigms of interacting with current technology.

Incidentally, the greatest sin I see is that they seem to be keeping the Start Menu concept, but they're hiding it!