[HelloMcFly]

This isn't change for the sake of being different, it's a radical (and risky) attempt at change such that the mobile and desktop environments become merged.

And you Microsoft Office ribbon example is great! That was another change that many saw as "change for change's sake", but it's become a UI function that the vast majority appreciate and depend on. I'm sure many of the HN crowd would have, or did, lambast the ribbon on introduction, and I'm equally sure many of them have come to love it. It sure didn't take me long.

[wtallis]

I know what Microsoft's attempting to do with Metro. What I don't know is what benefit it will have for desktop users. Merging their touch and desktop visual styles might strengthen Microsoft's brand, but I've yet to hear any plausible theories for how it will benefit (or even not harm) usability for desktop users. There's decades of HCI research that says touch interfaces should be different from desktop interfaces. So what's the upside for users? Why should they accept Metro, if not just because Microsoft has a monopoly?

[tsotha]

>This isn't change for the sake of being different, it's a radical (and risky) attempt at change such that the mobile and desktop environments become merged.

How does this benefit the actual customer? I don't have a tablet, and I'm not planning to buy one. It's great that Microsoft will only have one code base for the two platforms, but that's great for them, not for me.

[katbyte]

well I don't particularly like it, but i manage.

the ribbon i think is far less of a drastic UI change then metro.

The ribbon was just changing the text menus to a persistent large tool bar with tabs. Metro is like bolting a touch interface overtop of the standard desktop interface and replacing the start menu with it.