Before your bring the inevitable flames, please read everything.
Let's say Metro in Windows 8 was optional. One click of a checkbox and no more Metro. What would you have then? A few updates, fixes and enhancements. Isn't that what defines a Service Pack? Edit:
And if you think Service Packs don't add new features, then please, read this: http://technet.micro...036.aspx?ppud=4
Sure, you could argue that Windows 8 could get a facelift pretty much in the same way of Windows Vista to Windows 7. To you I say: Why would you still want incremental updates to a interface that's 16 years old? Isn't it time for change? If Windows 95 didn't force an UI change, then we would still be looking at something similar to Windows 3.1!
You can argue that it's a change for the worse, I argue that it's a change for the best. Truly, the only way to answer that will be in a few years, in which the market will say if Metro was a bad choice. Right now, Metro is here to stay and it's the path Microsoft has chosen for Windows 8. Deal with it.
And if you truly hate Metro, then stick with Windows 7. Because that's what you get if you take Metro out of Windows 8, a Windows 7 Service Pack 2. Why won't Microsoft release a Service Pack 2? Well, actually they might. Right now, they're devoting their resources to Windows 8, so if you don't like Metro, stick with Windows 7, no one is forcing you to buy Windows 8. Sure you might have to buy a PC with Windows 8 in it, but no one will force you to use it, if you hate Metro that much, Windows 7 will still be available for purchase, buy a copy.
If Metro truly is a pile of crap, then Windows 9 will change it. Either be it by redesigning it, or by even removing it, Microsoft will eventually have to change it, the market will force them to do that. But if Metro is here to stay in Windows 9 and Windows 10, then your only hope to use the same UI you've been using for 16 years is to keep using Windows 7, and the problem there is you, because if Microsoft doesn't change it, then it's because it became successful and most people actually like it.
Change is difficult to accept. Changing a 16 year old formula is difficult, but touch and tablets are here to stay, and Windows has to adapt. Metro is the solution Microsoft came up with. If it's the best one, that's an endless debate, but the fact is that Metro really is a solution. If it wasn't, there would be better alternatives in the market, and there aren't any. No other OS out there has an interface that works as well with mouse/keyboard and touch. I use both regularly because I have a Tablet PC (convertible), and I lose nothing by alternating between those input methods, and I've lost nothing by changing from Windows 7 to Windows 8 on my Desktop PC. Like it or not, that's the truth, you don't lose anything, you just have different methods to do the same things. Again, if it's for the best or for the worse, that's an endless debate that only time can answer.
One of the biggest complaints about Metro, even by the people that like it, is that you eventually get back into the old desktop. But is it really the "old desktop"? Isn't it more like a "legacy desktop" application? You can close it just like any other application! In the end, it's a "legacy desktop" application in order to maintain compatibilty, because once those third-party applications get by the thousands, many people won't even have to use the "legacy desktop" during their Windows session.
It's a "legacy desktop" to ensure a transition. It isn't "not consistent". It's "no compromise".
Bring on the flames, just try to be rational.