Again, no. That's like saying the Start menu is the "desktop" simply because it "sets the tone" of the rest of UI elements of the desktop.
What exactly do you think UI stands for? The Start Menu is the interface in which users interface with the OS. Its not the complete interface but it is the front end. Change the Start Menu to Metro doesn't mean the whole UI was replaced just the front end which sets the tone for user experience.
So... "interface in which users interface with the OS"? Lol Do <I>you</I> know what UI stands for?
The UI is an encompassing (<- key word here) abstract framework of interaction with computer systems and it's usually compromised of many different elements. Singling out one element, and calling it the user interface is wrong. The Start Screen is not <I>the</I> user interface, it's an element of it. Metro is the user interface. Can't really make it any more clearer than that.
I see you haven't refuted my point, and now we've gone from why people hate the Start Screen to semantics...
There's no ambiguity. The Start Screen being a "major flaw" is subjective. Just as it is bad for you, it is great for me (after, admittedly, the learning curve). Our scenario will apply to a sample of literally <I>billions</I> of people, which is why it'll be interesting.
And explain to me what changes from Vista to 7 were worth $120? It's all about appearance, my friend.
The metro stuff occupies the ENTIRE screen, so, yes, it can be called UI, and, some people who aren't so good at computers aren't even able to get off it and get back to the desktop. Yes, it's true.
And, about the second phrase, yes, Windows 7 was THAT much better. Vista was almost unusable before service pack 1, because it was so bloated and slow and Windows 7 corrected all that and had a much better kernel, and yes it also had a BETTER appearance (which windows 8 failed to deliver).
I dunno if you work for M$, but whether Windows 8 is an improvement from 7 (or even XP) is much more debatable than comparing 7 to Vista. If you doubt it, just take a look around the internet forums around the world.
No it can't. Read previous paragraph.
And no, Windows 7 wasn't that much better for it to be worth $120, especially when taking into account that the incremental difference between 7 & 8 is equal (if not larger) as that of Vista & 7, while still being 80% cheaper than Windows 7 at launch. Sorry but your argument is flawed.
And no, I don't work for Microsoft. Why suggest that, because I'm objective? Should I imply since you don't like Windows 8 that you <I>must</I> work for Apple too? Please. Truth is, Vista is a better OS than XP. Everyone agrees it had very, very rough launch, but those who <I>truly</I> know, know it's a superior OS to XP.
"But oh no, that can't be true, it's Vista!" Yeah, well, reputation is a *****. And just like rumors, bad rep spreads pretty quickly.
People might stick to XP as a way to show off how much an "old-school" power user they are (whatever that means). Some hated Vista because of it's unnecessary animations, general lack of UI polish, or maybe the never sticked with it long enough to see SP1. The same applies to 7, some don't like the (better) use of Aero, lack of UI customization when compared to XP, others still think it's Vista with a different taskbar, etc.
Some people won't get Windows 8 on the desktop because of the Start Screen, but you'd be surprised to know many of the <I>will</I> get a Windows RT tablet. Truth is, there are millions of people out there, and whatever you see, read, or hear, is not quantitatively indicative of the 1+ billion computers powered by Windows.
