See, with XP, I didn't have to get used to it. It built naturally and intuitively on the things I knew from Windows 95/98, and let me switch off anything I found awkward. "You don't like it because you haven't tried to like it" is such a weak argument that you don't even hear moms using it to get their kids to eat their peas.
Meh... I think you're remembering with rose tinted glasses, because you like XP, now. The level of bitching about XP in the early days was immense, too. Yet everyone got over it, and loves it, now. 10 years ago, you had tons of people saying how they'd stick to 98SE forever. I don't think you'll find anyone wanting to run that much, anymore.
I really liked Windows 7's interface. Other than the retarded start menu that always needs expanding and extra clicks. IMHO, the old fly-out menus were faster, more organized looking, and required less clicks. Personally, I think a lot of people agreed with me that the new start menu was braindead. Microsoft's own studies showed how start menu usage had dropped dramatically. Unfortunately, they took this data as the green light to kill the start menu instead of fixing it. Ah well... That's Microsoft for ya... They never met a problem they couldn't find a potentially undesirable solution to. LOL!
Personally, I would probably like Metro, if the implementation were somehow complete. If the computer somehow functioned as a cohesive whole with the tile interface, I think it'd be a pretty interesting concept. But as it stands, Metro just becomes a strange tile-based launcher for applications into the legacy desktop, which adds a lot of confusion. Then, some applications will have both Metro and legacy versions... Then you can end up with one Internet Explorer launched in Metro, one in legacy, and they can end up with different toolbars and viewable content in each. d'oh! My less skilled users will be completely befuddled.
