This is our basic disagreement. I just do not think that it is efficient. I believe that it inefficient and regressive. Why would anybody want to run full-screen apps in a windowing system? Why have a layer on top of the desktop and dumb it down to provide a marketing advantage? Is this what the future of computing is?
I am far more in the "bleeding edge" of software than you are, I am sure. I am all for progress. The problem is how one defines progress. And the "Start Screen" is not progress, it is anything bad. We need to make the computers smarter to use, we need to have them do more, not less. We have increased the resolution of our screens to be able to display rich information and now we are regressing to low resolution, lego-style simplicities of the Metro-style Start Screen just because Microsoft needs to make more money and sell tablets.
I think that you would be "forced" to run the Metro-style Start Screen, or stay with Win7. The Metro-style Start Screen contributes absolutely nothing to the computing experience. But it is really essential for Microsoft.
Microsoft wants to condition users to the Metro Interface. Some clever marketer in Microsoft has decided that this is the best way to steer users to Microsoft smartphones and tablets. Without conditioning the users at the desktop, there is no desire by the average user to "go Metro". Personally, I find Metro unattractive and rather "retro". It reminds me of front ends circa 1980's.
Microsoft also wants to make money from its app store, just announced. So, without the Start Screen, there is no money coming from the app store!!! It is as simple as that.
As from my above post, I think you are quite wrong. You make it sound like this evolution started here. In XP, we are were given the ability to put apps in the task bar as well as the Start Bar, this evolved in Vista and Further in 7. Giving more room for "priority apps" isn't a new thing, one that Microsoft has been doing there homework on and realizing how much people use. Windows 8 just gives is a more organized way to get to those apps quicker.
Thus, the Start Screen is (a) a Marketing Device and (b) a Money-making proposition. Because Microsoft wants to have the opportunity of selling these $1.99 - $4.99 apps to tens of millions of users, it has gone ahead and deleted access to hundreds (or even thousands) of desktop gadgets (that were doing much of the same thing and did not cost a penny).
I will say for the first time, I do agree with you. This is another way for them to make money, but you are taking it quite too far. They are forcing us just as much to buy apps as they have done to buy Office! It will be up to you, you want a cooler weather app .... your choice to but it.
I am still trying to figure out why you are even on this forum, if you hate the operating system so much. Not looking for a fight, just never understand haters on a forum ......
First of all, I am glad that you agree with me. But making money by "denuding" the old OS, killing the desktop gadgets so that there is no alternative, and forcing users to use an totally unnecessary layer just to make more money seems wrong to me.
I am in this forum because I care for Windows, this is absolutely true. I think that users who object to where Microsoft is taking this OS should raise their voices. I have little doubt that the same debate went (or is still going) on within Microsoft. The marketers and the totally hapless Steve Balmer won. If you do not like where this whole thing is going, speak. If you think that this is progress, I am dumbfounded. But it takes all kinds...