The reason this happened is that while Sinofsky had the maniacal power and force of will of a Steve Jobs, he lacked Jobs’ best gift: An innate understanding of good design. Windows 8 is not well-designed. It’s a mess. But Windows 8 is a bigger problem than that. Windows 8 is a disaster in every sense of the word.
This is not open to debate, is not part of some cute imaginary world where everyone’s opinion is equally valid or whatever. Windows 8 is a disaster. Period.
Paul Thurrott shares some of his inside information, and it’s pretty damning. According to him, Sinofsky’s team – even up to his major supporter, Steve Ballmer – were removed from the company after it became clear just much of a disaster Windows 8 was.
I agree with his conclusion: razor-sharp focus on productivity, Windows’ number one use. The desktop side of Windows 8.x is pretty good as it is, and has been progressively getting better with every update. I would go one step further than Thurrott. Windows 9 (desktops/laptops) and Windows Metro (tablets/smartphones). These two can still be one product (e.g., connect a keyboard/mouse/monitor to your x86 smartphone and it opens the desktop), but they should be entirely separate environments.
Whether or not you consider it a disaster or not depends on your perspective. If you were actually hoping for Metro to fail, then I’d say it was a rousing success Plus, as you say, the desktop side of it is pretty good. Ignore all the Metro crap (Win8.1 lets you disable the hot corners and stuff) and it really is a better OS than Win7. I personally had no issues adjusting to the start screen, but I’d still install classic shell if I had to and use it instead of Win7. Why?
Edited 2014-02-10 00:16 UTC