Although I can appreciate an article such as this, it paints a picture that the objection to the Metro interface is somehow an objection to change.
As a user of multiple Operating Systems (Win 7, Fedora 15, openSUSE...to just name a few) the idea of "change" is normally aligned with "improvement." The Metro UI in a desktop environment doesn't create improvement. If anything, it creates a great opportunity to refreshen my command-line-savvy--which is the primary way that I've engaged Windows 8.
Windows 8 is an otherwise amazing, progressive, modern Operating System. Although many of its improvements come from the Linux branch of computing, they're still welcome. From the graphical file transfer notification to the general way in which 8 functions...beautiful!
My only reservation--after thinking price, compatibility, and migration would be the biggest hindrances--is Metro. I look forward to using this interface on my mobile device in the future...seems very intuitive and...simply...different. However, forcing this upon me in a desktop environment is extremely short-sighted of Microsoft. It would have been better as an option denoted during installation (choose Metro or Classic interface...adjustable upon installation in Control Panel-->Interface)...let the masses play with it...the tech-boys would fiddle with it and convince their not-as-tech-savvy friends that it's cool...and then introduce it as a mandatory interface on Windows 10.
It is the lack of option that people don't like; tech-inclined or otherwise. Being tech-inclined, I'm annoyed with the idea that I don't have options. Third-party applications aren't an interest given their inherent effect on RAM...I should be able to change this in the registry at the very least...
We'll all see how it plays out. Articles denoting those who dissent as kicking and screaming are useless. I expect more of you TechRepublic...
Keep Up with TechRepublic