At this stage I'm still unconvinced by this GUI. Is MS genuinely attempting to create innovative markets, or simply latch onto existing one's?
I remember using the Amiga's wimp-based operating system named 'Workbench', being released years before Windows 95. With preemptive multi-tasking built right into the hardware from the ground up, this thing was streets ahead of the competition and create a niche market for video production. The only things that let Amiga slip by the wayside were marketing and management, not the hardware.
Why did MS go for a 'Windows' name if they wanted to create something different? The name implies it doesn't break away from accepted tradition. Worse, will history repeat itself? Do we need a Windows 8? No doubt it will be a perfect candidate for gobbling computer resources and requiring quite a considerable amount of servicing.
I myself prefer the traditional look of Windows XP, and want to know what's going on under the hood so to speak. Cloud computing is not something I'd relish for reasons of privacy. The interface itself shown looks far too simplistic and cumbersome for my liking..it might be great on a mobile device but I don't relish the thought of using it on a desktop which is where I do most of my work. For instance, how do I navigate 21,000+ web links on Windows 8? Will it do this any better than using a pull-down menu? A desktop PC isn't just designed for simple tasks and simple layouts.
If Windows 8 gives me the same frustration Windows Vista does, it's gone. I won't use it. The more time I spend battling with an OS, the less time I have to concentrate on my work and the less inclined I am to be spontaneous. This is just how I felt when I stopped using an upgraded Amiga and instead went back to DOS, Windows 3.11 and even Windows '95. I get the impression that MS is simply attempting to repeat history by trying to re-invent the wheel. This interface looks like something that would only supplement any Windows-based system, rather than replace it.