You don't get it do you. It is not the fact that the start menu is still there and can be turned on even though Microsoft doesn't want it turned on. It is the fact that if we don't fight to keep it Microsoft will remove the code in future OS designs. With that thought I will leave you to wonder how we will keep the Start Menu if we do not voice our opinions now on wanting to keep it.
I think <I>you</I> don't get it. Which, no offense, is not at all surprising among the Windows 8 "blind critics." Let me let you in on a little secret:
The code has already been removed.
I'm sorry, but did you think this was a progressive thing? That there is a fight to win? No, sir. There's no going back. The potential success of Windows 8, as evident by your fears, is what subconsciously fuels most the blind critics. The fear is, as you've implied, that future versions will not go back if somehow collectively voicing "it sucks" doesn't make MS think twice.
Well, it won't. It's Windows 95 all over again.
The program I mentioned, brings the lost code back into Explorer. You know, that's what I meant by native. Essentially, as "dooming" as the sales figures you see might seem, know there are three simple things you can do: you either get on the Metro bandwagon, the Windows 8 + Start Menu bandwagon, or stick to Windows 7. Your choice, just know the latter isn't future-proof.
P.S. The only reason the Menu can be brought back is because Metro still utilizes foundational code that simply doesn't make sense to remove.
Um what facts do you have? Sales figures? Microsoft does force or encourage many suppliers to ship Win8 with new PCs. Do you have actual upgrade figures?
I seem to be pointing this out to a lot of people lately (not that surprising, really): Windows 8 has been available to OEMs, partners, an select enterprise customers <I>before</I> general availability. This means sales figures publicized are of actual consumer sales.
Now, about upgrades. Let's assume for a second the released figures so far are not upgrades but actual sold copies. It's still successful.
But let's consider, as I'm sure you want to consider, that the released figures <I>do</I> include upgrades. Let's analyze this for a second. What would it mean? What would knowing the upgrades tell you, exactly? That there are more people upgrading than there are buying? That there more people buying than there are upgrading?
Another side of this point is that upgrades are indeed cheaper. You could then argue, if you agree the reported sales figures do include upgrades, that most people did because it's cheaper. Let's also consider this. To the average consumer: Windows 8, with a radically different Start Screen, <I>aimed at touch</I>, with it's own "store" akin to the likes of iOS, <I>on a desktop</I>, it's 80% cheaper than what Windows 7 was (which, besides the better marketing, wasn't such a radical change from the Vista fiasco), so <I>why on earth should I upgrade?</I>
It seems to me there's every possible reason for the regular consumer to have decided against buying Windows 8, whether it be for the potential reasons above or for no need due to Windows 7. And yet, whether there are more upgrades than sales or vice-versa, the amount of consumers that decided to <I>get</I> the radically new OS so far outweighs the grim picture people like you would love to paint.
By what metric? You haven't said any way Win8 is better than Win7.
By what metric was 7 better than 8? Well, real world--benchmarks aside--usage shows that it's simply faster. Faster at booting, faster at opening documents, faster at indexing. Improved task manager and efficiency as also evidenced by its ARM support. For less tech-savvy folks it now comes with MSE disguised as Windows Defender.
Changes from Vista and 7? Except for MSE and the new taskmanager, just copy and paste what's above.
Your point?
Another point of view is that it adds unnecessary features and a cumbersome interface for a desktop user so it is a worse version? Why not stick with the more polished version?
Using a mouse on the Metro UI is pretty inefficient for operations such as minimise. Using the GUI for task switching is slow. Why bother using Metro for task management when keyboard is light years faster. The App search is annoying too... by default control panel items are not displayed in search results. You have to select the sublist rather than just have the sublist items displayed directly. Seems to lack polish.
Because they are trying to compete in the mobile space. The desktop is <b>not going anywhere.</b>
You can "vote" with your wallet, sure, but know it's futile. Just know if you want, you can remove Metro's idiosyncrasies.
I too hated Windows 8. Well, only one part, really: it's hot-corners (I was indifferent to the Start Screen as I really didn't use it). Nothing infuriated me more whenever I, for instance, selected a tab or pressed Back button in Chrome and accidentally switched to an "app." It was so poorly thought-out it made me puke.
But I take comfort in the fact that I use an OS that allows me to tinker with it as much as possible. I won't miss out on its benefit based on ethics. It's also rather foolish to believe the "end" of the Start menu will come if the people unwilling to adapt don't voice their opinion, when the sad reality is that the Start menu is gone for good and the only option is to either adapt, take advantage, or stay in the past.
Me? I decided to <I>take advantage</I> of the very characteristic people like you say MS took from Windows: it's openness.