Well, I'm glad you like Ubuntu. However, I suggest giving it a few weeks before you jump to any real conclusions.
If you're like 99% of the rest of the people that try Linux, it won't take long before you start noticing things that are off. How different apps have totally different UI's (true, this happens in windows as well, but not nearly as often). Like how major apps just crash for the hell of it, largely because Ubuntu tends to run the "bleeding edge" versions of apps that have lots of bugs.
One thing that has always annoyed me is how you have to configure things like "panels" manually, you can't just drag and drop, or right click and choose "pin to taskbar". Part of the reason is that Linux apps don't have embedded icons, so you have to find artwork for everything you want to have an icon for.
The other thing is that so many apps are 90% finished, but lack that little bit extra that makes them truly usable and rounded out.
If, after a few weeks of using it, you still love it... then I'm happy for you. I'm betting you'll be back though.
Until or unless the Linux distro people get this aspect sorted then it will always be a marginal OS IMO.
And to recap, even though there was a great deal of negative publicity (and still is) about Metro UI (ooops, not meant to call it that now are we??), MS have gone their own way on this so Win8 with either fly or flop. I know where my money is betting.
Sad that MS could have avoided all of this by offering a choice but maybe that was too simple to penetrate the bubble that Redmond live in. Interesting times!!!
Hey guys, just to clairify, I didn't say I wasn't going to use Windows anymore. For whatever reason, whether it be my mistake in the OP, or the misunderstaning of everyone in this thread, it was not supposed to sound like that. As stated, I was drinking at the time of writing the original post. Anyway, it was simply an opinion how MS should have done Metro. Nothing else.
sorry if I offended you, but all I read here on the board is "I don't like Win8, hate the metro, hate this or that".
that's why my answer.
Well as I've said before, the REAL way Metro (or what the hell ever) should have been implemented is within another movable, resizable, fullscreenable window that could be placed anywhere on any monitor at any time. Then the live tiles would have been VISIBLE and working as intended (i.e. usable) when in desktop mode. That at minimum. Better yet, when metro apps are launched, they also get their own window. If I want to play a quick game of mine sweeper while waiting for a dowload or a video recode to finish, I DON'T want it to take up the ENTIRE screen. Who would? It's a 480x480 size game /at best/.
Another related issue is that we don't have a standardized flavor of Linux. One of the strong points to Linux is that you can get a distro designed exactly for what you are trying to accomplish. For some, that's going to be feature rich and bleeding edge. For others, it's as small as possible and stability over anything else. So, if a vendor were to provide driver support or make a port of their application for Linux...which flavor do they design their product for? And it won't be easy to take a community that cherishes their "freedom" so much, to get them to agree that Linux distro A is the standard format going forward and that's what they should use.
At the end of the day, it really comes down to using whichever product is the best tool for the job. For my gaming box at home, it's Windows. For other boxes, I have some choices as I don't really use the Adobe products. I can easily manipulate a photo on a Linux machine running The Gimp with the lack of skill that I have for these applications. As a box for my kids, to simply surf the web, there is no reason whatsoever to pay for a copy of Windows at present time. Linux works just fine on that box.
In getting back to the topic at hand, I think the same general principals above apply to the love or hate relationship with the feature formally known as "metro", know known as the "new windows ui". For some people, they don't really need a full fledged computer for 95% of their tasks. They read email, follow the news, read a book, play some music, watch YouTube and post to facebook/twitter. So, the new windows ui and full screen apps might work out just great for these tasks. For those of us who do much more than the above, or want to do other things concurrently while we do the above stuff, the new UI isn't as full featured or fabulous and we will default to using the classic desktop. Some of us, only use our computer for those desktop style tasks...and question whether windows 8 really provides any value to us whatsoever. Therefore, we plan to just stick with Windows 7...which for many, truly isn't broken and is working just fine. <- That's where I am.