Kinda funny that everyone was saying the same general thing about Windows 95's UI when it was in development...

Umm hate to break it to ya Linuxlove but that was 16 years ago and in the technology world thats a pretty long time for people to get used to the UI. Now your point being?

The point being that people said the same things about Win95's UI because it was CHANGING. Now people are complaining about Windows 8's UI and saying it'll fail (just like they did with Win95), but they'll be wrong. Again. Can't believe you needed that clarified.

Date and age is irrelevant. All I said was that the same general complaints regarding Windows 8's new UI are like that of Windows 95's then-new UI.

1995: "Explorer? Start Menu? No! I want File Manager and Program Manager back!"
2012: "Metro? No! I want the Start Menu back!"

So yeah. Same general complaints.

However, though, a lot more people use Windows 95+ than the previous editions, so the change will be much bigger.

And then, a few decades later, there are going to have this exact same complaints about an future new UI.

They are most likely to want Metro back in the future, IMO.

Is there any way to get windows 8 to run in Virtual Box. I've tried and it just sits on the boot screen.

VirtualBox is quite meh when it comes to virtualizing Windows 8. Use VMWare Workstation 8 or VMWare Player 4, that will work much better.

By then everyone will probably be using tablets and then I'd be able to get used to such changes easier. But I don't understand why some of you are fine about this... Change is good but only when it's beneficial to the user (or the developer) and Metro is clearly not designed for desktop users yet is forced upon the user no matter what platform they might be on and this is a big issue, and I don't think some of you fully understand where this is going to go in the future. Now I must state that personally I have no problem with the Metro UI itself, that is if I was using a touchscreen but its usage with a mouse and keyboard is poor compared to the traditional start menu and that's a fact. If you're someone like me that uses a computer almost everyday the Metro interface is not good for working due to the distracting design of the interface. Ideally (and this has been already suggested a number of times) the Metro start-menu should be optional at least for desktop users but this is clearly not going to be the case and on top of all this if Metro is successful then I believe we're going to start seeing somewhat of a transition away from the traditional applications we use today and more towards applications that you would have to download through Microsoft's store and use via the Metro interface... What is Microsoft's strategy here going to be? Convince developers to develop for the traditional PC user or develop for users using Metro? Obviously we're going to see the latter.

I'm probably repeating myself but honestly the transition to Windows 95 made sense however this is on a different scale entirely as they're practically trying to support two separate platforms in one.

Frankly, hogsy, all statements that it's "distracting" and "not designed for desktop users" are SUBJECTIVE. I find Windows 8 easy and convenient to use on my desktop with a keyboard and mouse, as I've said before. Why am I fine with this design? Because I LIKE it, and I think it's convenient, and I really don't care what detractors have to say about it. If you don't like it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean those of us who like it are "wrong".

Has anyone actually bothered to time themselves using the new start menu compared with the old one?

I have. Took me a couple seconds less to use the Start Screen than it did the Start Menu.

Timed myself this morning. To find and launch a non-pinned program took me 7 seconds on Win7, 4 seconds on Win8's Start screen.

Interesting that both you two found it more quickly but then I guess I am indeed missing something here since it's taking me twice as much effort with the new one. The search function in the new start menu certainly does save me a lot of time in comparison (which is quite interesting) and I'm sure with the new start menu it's just a matter of organizing everything better. Still I wish there was a smoother way to get into the all apps view and find what you want... Right now whenever I go into that it's like looking at this horrific mess splashed all over my screen.

I think it may be a matter of how people think. I find the Start Screen easier and faster to use because it seems natural to me. The current Start Menu, on the other hand, feels rather clumsy and artificial, so it takes me longer to use it because I have to think of exactly what I'm doing.

I totally agree that the new one is a pretty poor UI for desktop and laptops. Awesome UI for tablets though. Microsoft is going to have a hard time getting marketshare away from Windows 7 - if some of us geeks don't like it and find it unnecessarily hard, imagine how the general public is going to react to it.
That said, I do believe that Windows was long overdo for a major refresh, so I applaud Microsoft for that. Their implementation just leaves a lot to desire.

I kinda like the new look of Windows 8 now, i wouldn't use it on my own laptop but if i had to use it (someone elses pc/public place) then i wouldn't moan about it.

How does it work with these? And what is .esd file for?

Just use isos

Oh dear! Only 24 days to the release of Windows 8!

But since not everybody likes Windows 8, lets just boycott it!

I'd just download the ISO's which I have and keep them in storage. For me Windows 8 has already been released because I have dreamspark premium. I'm already using one copy legally which is a miracle for me on my desktop. That has Server 2012 as I wanted to have fun and just try it out.

Are you a TechNet Subscriber?

Well Terra, he said DreamSpark Premium. You know what's that, don't you?
Tip: Bing it if you don't

I don't like Windows 8, but I understand where Microsoft is coming from with it. iPad sales are up, PC sales are down. Microsoft knows they won't succeed in creating a separate tablet OS, seeing as how most android tablets aren't selling too well (not to mention, look at the sales of the Windows 7 Phone next to the iPhone). So, obviously, the most logical move is to make their most widespread OS a tablet OS in hopes that consumers will like it and appreciate it. Also, Microsoft is facing the challenge that average consumers don't need Windows like they used to. I know of a lot of people who only use an iPad . It's quite a gamble, but Microsoft seems to really be betting on it doing well. The way I see it, it's going to be a big success, or a commercial failure.

I don't know if this information has been posted already, I just wanted to give my thoughts.