A customer asked me a question in regards to the latest OS from Microsoft; she asked why it was being called Windows when it was mostly an interface, similar to that of a mobile phone.
She said and I quote "Why is it being called windows, why not call it Microsoft Interface version 1 or something like that".
With Windows 8 the metro interface was built from scratch and has the old architecture underneath; the interface itself is not all that great, it still has a long way to go before it can function on it's own without parts of the old architecture added to it. The upgrade for Windows 8 that is due to be released soon is the next step forward in terms of development for the Metro interface design; so the future possibilities for such a design are endless, they just need to keep moving forward.
But as it is not really the same as the OS before it, they should really be using a different nomenclature for this new OS interface right? They should continue to run the current architecture that is familiar to most users and then market a new product for the newer users who want the interface; so Microsoft Windows whatever and Microsoft Interface running along side each other and competing for market share.
This way Microsoft can still make money and then focus more on building a new concept for their Interface OS that is free from the traditional Windows architecture.
Desktop users who are familiar with the desktop design should be allowed to have that freedom to choose, rather than being forced to accept something they can't work with. If Microsoft need to include some apps into the old architecture then bring back the widgets like those seen in Windows Vista and work on improving the performance; this opens the doors wide to endless possibilities and caters for all types of users, regardless of where they are routed (Desktop or Interface).