I am skipping Windows 8 unless I get a large dose of disposable income and feel like tinkering. I'm against supporting the bastardization of the desktop into a tablet hybrid.

I don't foresee touch screen technology becoming mainstream (unless touch screens become all that gets used via oligopoly tactics) for a good 7-10 years. This OS has no place with current technology and is in my humble opinion insulting.

Microsoft's Windows phones last time I checked were in the minority of the smart phone market, with Google's Android OS and Apple's iOS holding the lion's share. I'm ASSuming that Win 8 is compatible with both types of mobile OS's, otherwise they are really banking on selling product that doesn't move.

Also, tablets can be a cheap man's personal computing device, but tablets that require a contract with major phone carriers come with data plans that have very VERY small data limits (think 4 gb per month or 6gb per month with the maximum data plan typically 12-15 gb per month) and any tablet that runs on home-based wifi and does not require said data plan is running off a router that is connected to a.... personal computer.

I admit, I was hoping to score a Kindle Fire in a giveaway my work had recently, but would I want an OS on my desktop that is designed for my Kindle? HELL NO. Part of the reason tablets are selling so well is the "new" feel to them, at least that's my guess and the reason I want one.

Finally, I would like to point out taking the start menu away after having it for gawd knows how many years in every iteration of windows is going to piss off a LOT of people. The one guild I'm in the one IT guy installed it on a spare pc to groom his skills but he says he hates it. No one else that's a regular there cares for it enough to even try it free.

I see a lot of reasons for it to fail, but saying that, the majority of the public (at least here in the USA) seem to like shallow money grabs of all sorts and seem to shun honest attempts at art and technology for the purpose of bettering your life, mind, and spirit.

I think, saying everything I said, that Win 8 will be a success for Microsoft, once they finalize the contract of getting Win 7 to no longer come pre-installed on all pre-built PC's. This will be as a result of higher OEM costs to system builders.

Everything I've seen about it shows me that Microsoft is dying to get us away from desktop computing. Literally, throwing millions in development on a product that every personal friend I know hates, dislikes, or has no interest in. It has no business purpose that I can tell at a cursory glance other than to make third party app vendors oodles and oodles of cash.

You don't even want to know how many people I've talked to in the two years I've worked for a major phone carrier that claim they never purchased the content that's on their bill. If MS wants to succeed at this hybrid cash cow attempt, they better make the legal language clear on the app store, otherwise they're going to be getting a LOT of people trying to give something back to them after they're done with their fix of the latest fad.

You do realize that only the Start Menu was removed and replaced with a new, modern application runtime environment, and that everything else is basically Vista 6.2 (with 7 being Vista 6.1), right?

EDIT: I honestly fail to see how an useless menu that was replaced with a powerful application runtime environment translates into an OS built for tablets.

Not surprised.
Like WinXP, Windows 7 is one of MS best IS product for years. People highly unlikely to upgrade in short term to something which really isn't much more than an upgrade (except for those who are tablet/smartphone OS centric). What benefits does it have for desktop computing?? (the majority of average consumers - and a goodly chunk of business) (leaving out the tablet/smartphone bullshite) :P

Quite a lot: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/

The screenshots I've been getting in my technet emails (the ones I bothered to look at, admittedly) were the same layout and GUI as the Windows smart phones.

Honestly, my opinion is an opinion, I'm entitled to believe that MS is pushing for hybridization and that is my opinion. You can keep trying to sell Win 8, but I'm not buying it. That's my opinion and one I'm entitled to based on the evidence I've seen.

Unless I move into a field that requires it, I'm skipping Windows 8, no offense to you or anyone else that decides they like it :) Your opinion is equally as valid to you, as mine is to me.

Thats a good suggestion. it looks good. I've used Linux Ubuntu before, but this looks like a contender.

No, the start menu has not been removed it's just the start button that has been hidden, the start menu is still there it's just that is has been transformed into a clunky full screen tablet centric launcher.

It's like getting used to bicycle with square wheels, not matter how much good will you put and no matter how much kilometers you travel, I doubt you will end up saying that square wheel are better than rounded ones and that it's just a question of "getting used to it"

I like novelty, I don't mind changing my habits, but only if it mean changing them for something better, and here maybe it will be great for tablets but for desktop it's annoying.

That's the ("my" if you prefer) issue, it feels like two different OS badly glued together. If they had allowed metro tiles to be part of the desktop, given the desktop it's own mouse friendly apps launcher, it would have been much better and less awkward.

There is no "Metro for desktop" the "real" metro apps are supposed to be "touch first" as Ms called it, work on pc/phone/tablet, etc... (iOS and Android have already proved that making one size fits all apps was a stupid idea)

You can make Metro-looking desktop apps using third party components thought... but you can already do that on Windows 7.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Metro design... when it's done correctly and for applications that can use it... it's just that sadly 99% of the time Ms's Metro apps are butt ugly. Most of the Metro mockup done by "amateurs" look 1000 times better than the apps Ms released.

The obvious answer: To have more screen estate, usually I have : Outlook+IE+Sticky notes on my right monitor, Visual Studio(s) main screen(s) on the front one and VS's tools windows (Solution explorer + Pending changes + Resharper thingy's ) and process explorer on the left one.

I was going to suggest Linux Mint as well. By far the easiest distro to use.

Mint all the way for beginners. Or if you feel like shopping around check out distrowatch

You have lots of options, just the matter of finding the distro that works for you :)

The Start Menu takes up about 15% of my widescreen real estate and scrolls vertically, allowing me to quickly find a program/access a directory/run a search without losing focus on what I'm working on. The Start Menu in Win7 is an old concept, yes, but it is very efficient for what it sets out to do.

By contrast, the Metro Menu in Win8 RP takes up 100% of my screen real estate and lays out various coloured tiles in a horizontal manner that requires scanning the entire screen to find what I'm looking for. This is a necessity and relatively efficient on a 9" touchpad screen, but completely without UI design merit on desktops or laptops.

And yes, once you get past Metro, there are numerous enhancements to the core OS that are useful to have. My question is whether they are useful enough to warrant an upgrade from Windows 7? Instead of engineering the answer to the question of whether an MS OS can be relevant during the current tablet trend, Microsoft have engineered the question instead.