I've tried the initial Windows 8 developer preview, and I have to say it has been a jarring experience to switch back and forth between Metro and the "Windows Classic" desktop. The visual experience of Metro vs the Win7 style is so different that it feels slapdash and disjointed. This Windows 8 was just the initial developer preview though. I'm sure the next CTP will be worlds better - and I'm sure it Win8/Metro will be sweet on tablets.
There was a mega post at the build windows blog justifying (rationalizing?) their decisions. It's interesting reading to slog through. They've certainly put a lot of resources onto this decision, and it feels like the future of Windows based desktop PC's is in the balance. It feels like a really risky bet.
Ideally, MS would add a "Windows 7" mode that I can turn on and use my computer the way I've been accustomed to. I don't want to be learn more efficient with swipes/fewer clicks/etc - I've got a good thing going here. First thing I used to do with XP was switch it to the Windows Classic mode, so I'm probably not their target user.
FWIW, I also dropped Ubuntu post-Unity (running Debian now) and haven't looked back. This dog is too old to want to deal with learning any cheese moving tricks.
Everyone hates change and would love to go back, until they actually do go back. The status quo is familiar and therefore seems more efficient. It's "muscle memory". The current desktop system is a metaphor that never really played out.
Will Windows 8/Unity/Gnome 3 be better? Who knows. Will be it worse? Probably not. More than likely it will just be "different". Either way, if computing doesn't keep changing and evolving, we're going to be stuck in the barely-functional status quo forever. I'm willing to live through (and learn to love) the rough parts along the way until we reach the best we can possibly do.
> Everyone hates change and would love to go back, until they actually do go back. The status quo is familiar and therefore seems more efficient. It's "muscle memory". The current desktop system is a metaphor that never really played out.
This is largely quite true. I was probably one of the few people among my peers who actually appreciated the new taskbar introduced in Windows 7. Although that's not to say that criticism of Windows 8 isn't important; I think one of the things Microsoft did learn with the Windows 7 betas and release candidates was that feedback from the user base can very occasionally be helpful. In some exceptional cases, monitoring user feedback can short-circuit certain disaster.
The other thing to keep in mind is that change for the sake of change isn't always good--and likewise, it isn't always bad. Paradigm shifts will happen, things will change, and sometimes legacy designs will continue to persist for wont of familiarity. What I'm saying is this: Changing too much too drastically is a bold move. It might pay off; it might also be disaster.
My personal preference is to agree with apg; the developer preview was less than stellar, but my expectations weren't terribly high. I don't really like the paradigm shift Microsoft is trying to force across the Windows brand as it exists for a desktop OS, but it might be great for what it was designed for--tablets and phones.
It should be said that I also didn't care much for Unity even though I gave it an honest try for about two-three weeks. There were some things that it did well--and were equally quite handy--and there were others that felt too jarring and awkward. Metro feels somewhat similar in that regard. However, I'll reserve my full judgement until we're closer to a more finalized product so we can see what Microsoft's vision ultimately boils down to; thusfar, I'm not terribly impressed, but I admit they're making a decent effort. I do look forward to seeing the finished product even if I absolutely hate it. :)
I'm going to make the opposite argument. I think the current batch of Start Menu, dock, and panel launchers represent the product of continuous refinement. I honestly question whether the interface can truly be improved (versus made different) for current desktop interfaces. By current desktop interfaces, I mean a monitor, mouse, and keyboard. Right now, there no interface better for accomplishing real work on a computer.
Tablets and future, immersive, physically interactive interfaces (e.g. "virtual reality") will certainly be different, but I don't see why we should completely warp our well-established paradigms of interacting with current technology.
Incidentally, the greatest sin I see is that they seem to be keeping the Start Menu concept, but they're hiding it!
They will learn that it was a dumb move when corporate customers with hundreds of thousands of installations refuse to upgrade because the eye candy does nothing to improve productivity on their (obviously non-touchscreen) workstations. Coming Soon: Windows 9 Business Edition with the Classic keyboard-and-mouse UI.
As soon as I "experienced" unity I RAN to gnome, screamed in horror, then ran to KDE and just cried a bit to myself. What the hell is happening to linux? Ever since the nearing of Steve Jobs' decline & death it's like every amateur designer in the world's been tyring to take his place.
They're all trying to mimick his vision and design but without understanding it at all. I think this is why we keep ending up with all these heartless, sterile, Kindergarden UI designs.
EDIT: I am referring to the dumbing down, over simplification, extreme minimalization, and looks over usability of next generation UIs in general. NOT to Window's entire "Metro UI".
From this day forward we shall call this abomination "Kindergarden UI".
Example: Tom: "Hey how's Windows 8 compared to Ubuntu?". Stacy: "Oh they're both going to shit, they've got kindergarden UI now."
I wish Microsoft would realize that Windows is NOT OSX. In their desperate attempt to fabricate a Windows Cult following and "it just works" culture they're going to end up destroying the very thing that made windows what it is.
I tried unsuccessfully to convert to mac a few years ago, and numerous times to convert to linux. In my perticular situation, my linux installs have less stability than my windows 7 installation. After all trialing 10+ operating systems over the last 7 years I realized: I love Windows, it's Microsoft I hate.
From this day forward I shall call people who tell others what to think "doomsayers". Judging a UI before you can actually try a working, functional version of it and then espousing that ignorance to others is just asinine. Even worse if you've tried it and hated it just because it's different.
"Kindergarden UI" is a ridiculous term, and very subjective. I really hope no one actually takes your advice on anything.
From this day forward I shall call people who tell others what to think "doomsayers".
But freehunter, I'm just trying to mimic Steve Jobs like the other designers :(
Naa, miscommunication here. I try out a new linux flavor almost twice a year. I tried out the Windows 8 preview. I kept my mac around for months when I was trying that out. I LOVE different, I love simple. What I don't love is "minimalization without understanding what needs to be minimalized".
I apologize if there was a misunderstanding. There's a lot of hate for change, especially in this thread. Metro UI might not be the best, but the desktop is a tired metaphor that wore out its usefulness after Windows 98. I welcome UI changes with an open heart and an open mind. I'm willing to hear them out (which I got burned on by Canonical when I began using Unity and it didn't get better).
I may have jumped to conclusions with your post, but you must admit there was no obvious sign of open-thinking ;)
Well, the preview of Win8 showed that you can switch between Metro and the classic desktop. When I deploy Win8 to my users, it'll be locked to the desktop mode. Metro will be a netbook/tablet/embed only thing.
Don't take the complete fail that Unity is and apply it to this situation. Shuttleworth has no big corporate customers he needs to cater to. Those that don't like unity can figure out how to install Gnome or LXDE or whatever. Windows on the other hand will have both options ready to go from day one with an ease of a click. MS knows who butters their bread: corporate clients.
This is how I feel about Unity and why I moved to Debian+Openbox.
Unity might be incredible on a tablet when ctrl+space to bring up a launcher and typing "fir<enter>" to launch Firefox is slower than slapping an icon with my sausage finger. But on the desktop, Unity is a step backwards and adds nothing to me when my fingers are on home row all day. And trust me, I really tried to use Unity and I'm rather open-minded about new paradigms (Openbox was new to me).
I haven't tried Win8 yet, but it sounds like a similar situation. But I don't feel like the future of Windows-based desktop PCs is under fire. As long as Windows has powerusers, there will always be a solution to what might be a step backwards in design.
I don't think users will easily switch from the XP/7 experience to the Windows 8 "tile" one. And it seems all they are doing is forcing even more this new experience on them.
Whether it's old Windows users, Mac users, or Linux users - the transition will definitely not come as easy for them as it was the transition from XP to Win7, which was also heavily helped by the fact that people were already very tired of XP.
A lot of people who are complaining are most likely suffering from Baby Duck Syndrome. I haven't had the opportunity to try out Windows 8 yet, but I'm sure this is a calculated risk which can hopefully appeal to newer generations.
Because Ubuntu has become, for the last 2 years or so, a game of "what will they break next". Started, arguably, with the not-even-halfbacked initial Pulseaudio implementation, and continuing on to Unity.
Canonical seem to be playing the long game and tossing things out as they become available. It's like a waiter bringing you your meal as each piece gets done cooking. First he brings the sauce, then he brings the chicken, then he brings your beer, then he brings the beans. It might be a fantastic meal when put together properly, but piecemeal it's just an unappetizing mess.
I have no doubt that Ubuntu 16.04 (or whenever they finish) will be amazing, but in the meantime I really wish they would just wait until they have everything ready.
* It's like a waiter bringing you your meal as each piece gets done cooking.*
And then when you complain, they say, "don't be a whiner, you received a three-course chicken cordon-bleu meal prepared by a trained French chef!" Nevermind that it was out of order and disassembled.
I recently migrated my main desktop back from Windows 7 to Linux, and I actually ended up on Fedora. I've been pretty pleased with it overall. Sure, I ripped out Gnome 3 and dropped in KDE 4.8, but on the whole it really works quite well, including 3D (I recently replaced my old ATI card with an NVidia 560, which certainly helped).
Surprised even me. My linux journey, going back 12 or so years, was more or less Mandrake -> Debian -> Gentoo -> FreeBSD -> Ubuntu - Slackware. I tried Debian recently, didn't really like where any of the distros fell - unstable was TOO bleeding edge, while even testing lagged annoyingly far behind. Arch is nice, and I like it on servers but too fiddly for a desktop. Fedora really seems to be right around the sweet spot where it's useable, pretty up to date, but more importantly it's very much "linux" as I remember it, not with lots of not-very-well documented magic going on.
See, I have a different story with Fedora (and maybe this is partly due to Gnome 3). I installed it on my desktop/home server. I've got 6 hard drives, and I couldn't manage to get SMART warnings to stop popping up because one of them had 6 reallocated sectors. Like, every 3 minutes SMART was screaming at me.
Then I was trying to install Amahi and it required a package that was different than one that was installed by default. I could not figure out how to get yum to replace the current package with the one my software needed. The help from the developers? "--force is never a good option, so we don't offer it". Thank you, Microsoft, for protecting me from myself. I uninstalled the package, and it automatically uninstalled Network Manager and everything related to DHCP/networking. After that, I couldn't install the package I wanted because I couldn't configure a network connection.
It really seems the only time I have to resort to using the command line is when the distro's "intelligence" breaks the GUI. Ubuntu doesn't not break things, but at least when it does I know the best recourse (since I partition /home on it's own drive) is to just reinstall. Wouldn't have fixed a thing in Fedora.
I grew up on a command line, and I really hate being forced to go back to that just because the developers don't care enough make the GUI work properly.
Ubuntu 11.04 is a few versions behind on node.js. So a lot of modules won't install. If they're behind there I'm sure they're also behind in other programming environments as well. You can always install these things from source, but for programmers a rolling release distro like Debian or Arch makes more sense.
So is the start menu gone completely? With Windows7 it was actually on the way to become something like Spotlight (just not as good yet). I can't believe they'd patch that out, instead of improving on it, Windows needs something like Spotlight IMHO.
Are you actively using other windows while in the process of launching a new one? It's not like the start screen stays there forever, or the window you were looking at goes away. There are a lot of nit-picking curmudgeons in this thread.
I've been using GNOME 3 for a few months, and I actually am on board with this decision; it feels better, and looks fine. It takes some getting used to, but a button press (win key) or mouse flick is a lot faster than "mouse mouse to the corner, position it over the start button, click".
Does make me wonder how it'll work in multi-monitor setups, though. Presumably you can change the hot corner, but if that's not a launch feature there are going to be some severely annoyed users.
Hot corners are also a terrible experience when you're running the OS inside a non-fullscreen virtual machine. Sorry, your mouse just left the window instead of triggering the smart corner.
But then, if you're targeting the tablet market, none of this would matter.
Ever since MS removed the ability to dock toolbars to the left side of the screen (Vista/7) I've been using pinned start menu items and the Windows key to quickly access them. It didn't take long to get used to it and now I prefer having that tactile control. I won't miss the start button on screen. To me, it functions the same as the home button on the iPhone.
You don't have to position it onto the button. The button extends all the way to the corner. So it's a flick followed by a click. A flick alone will trigger the menu accidentally pretty often, and a flick followed by a hover is slower than a flick followed by a click.
I know, but psychologically, you end up aiming for the button, rather than hitting the "infinite margin" that is the corner.
I honestly don't think it's going to be a bad thing for me or the people that I know, but do I ever feel bad for tech support crews that already had issues getting old people to find the start button. :)
this is what ruined unity for me the launcher bar basically was stuck in the middle between screens the hack that makes it so you can move it somewhere else was only for x86 systems or something like that (found that out after it killed my X server).
As for Gnome: on of my monitors is "2 larger and therefore I can trigger the shell by hovering over the left corner without "slipping" to the other one or click the icon. There is also a second hot corner on my other monitor (by default).
I wonder if this is going to bring us back to the days where you need to run a server version of the OS if you want an environment suitable for doing technical work. I can't imagine running this on my dual 30'' setup.
After reading the article and hearing that you activate the start menu by "flicking" the mouse to the bottom left, I instinctively tried it myself and noticed an issue. I'm running a dual monitor setup, where my second monitor is to the left of my main monitor. Flicking the mouse to the bottom left just causes it to go to the second monitor, if I'm not careful. Now, to enter the start menu, I am going to have to carefully move the mouse down to the bottom left, just as I do with the start button as it currently is. This just seems like it's more prone to issues than the start button, for not much gain. Of course, I am open to trying it, just like I have every previous Windows version.
Terrible move. It doesn't save any space because the taskbar is still there. And most people use wide screens, so there is plenty of room for shortcuts horizontally.
If there's anything we've learned from the Engineering Blogs, they don't make major changes like this unless they have some kind of data that supports it.
I suspect we haven't even seen half of the things that will make this paradigm work, and I'd bet they have extensive Usability tests to back all of it up.
I've once used a program called "Start Killer" on my Windows 7 desktop, which removed the start menu button. I did this because I thought the desktop would look better without it. The Start menu would still come up when the Windows key was pressed, so that still worked, but I quickly found it annoying because there was no way to activate it with the mouse (which I did more often than I realized).
As for Windows 8, I have high hopes for it because I like Windows 7, but I do think Microsoft is going to end up with a weird GUI mashup if they are not careful.
Ever since I started using launchers to find programs/files/settings, I realized the pointlessness of a Start button. For Windows, I used Launchy. In Linux, I'm typing the program name into terminal.
The average user uses the Start menu as a browseable library of their installed programs (which it isn't even good at), so I think a direct list of apps is better all around with an option to launch apps from an intuitive search bar.
There needs to be a branch between the classic HID driven computing experience, and what is obviously an immersive, touch driven product. I feel like the Metro UI is what we'll be heading towards eventually, but I think some things just need to stay the same. A solid manipulative platform that is clean as it is elegant in its structure and its function is something I think a lot of us will need for the foreseeable future..
Agreed -- it's the difference between the keyboard/mouse and the touchscreen. They have different strengths and different use cases, so a one-size-fits-all approach is silly.
If it activates from the corner like in Gnome 3 then this is much better than the Start button.
The Start button was always a few pixels off the edges so you couldn't just shove your mouse to bottom-left corner and click. Instead, you had to find the corner and offset the mouse a notch towards up-right to hit the button.
They fixed that in Windows XP. (Although in Vista they made the Start button circular so it no longer appeared to occupy the corner pixel, the entire bottom left corner did remain hot, and remains so in Windows 7.)
Out of interest: has Microsoft commented at all on whether this new UI will integrate with the Kinect for PC? While my screens are far enough away that a touchscreen would prove arduous, flicking and sliding through screens with gestures might tie well to the Metro experience.
It’s even worse for first-time users: There’s no visual cue at all for returning to the Metro interface.
This mattered two decades ago. It does not matter now. Two decades ago, there was a large number of people who were just starting to integrate computers into their daily lives. This is no longer true. Computers are integrated into people's daily lives. The only people [1] who are "just starting" to integrate computers into their daily lives are the same people who are "just starting" to integrate using a toilet into their daily lives.
From now on, people will grow up with computers, and I think we should design interfaces to reflect that. "But what about first-time users?" should no longer be an interesting question.
[1] I'm sure someone can come up with specific counter-examples. I submit that those cases are rare enough that they shouldn't be a primary consideration for designing interfaces. Of course, there should be interface back-doors for disabilities and such, but that is not the same as primary considerations for most people.
It's not about new to computers, it's about new to your interface.
If you have a new interface, especially one that works differently from the old interface in a notable way, you can't assume that everyone will instantly figure out your new interface without cues.
I think it would be quite unlikely that the majority of users would be given a Windows 8 machine without some kind of tutorial. Windows has had a "Welcome to Windows" since at least Windows 95 (IIRC). Corporate users are generally given a brief documentation page on how to use their computer (we rolled out Windows 7 last summer with a 3-page document with screenshots of how to get around).
There will be precious few who can never get the hang of it.
Even if there are no first-time users anymore, I think computing in general can benefit from User Interfaces being developed as if they are developed for first-time users, and the advanced options layered underneath. This is where OS X gets things right.
In addition, computers may be integrated into daily lives, but I think this definitely does not mean the opposite - that people have learned how to operate them properly, despite them being so integrated. If level of integration into society means that user interface does not need to cater to beginning users, there would be no designers left to make designs - only engineers (perish the thought :) But seriously -- and forgive me for using a car analogy -- but the basic operation of a car is actually simpler, rather than more complicated.
To be fair, some OS X advanced options are in hair-pulling places, which I believe only underlines how hard it is to market computers to the masses with differing layers of knowledge
From the few screenshots and videos I saw of windows 8 I cant make myself like it, the metro interface looks good for a tablet I agree with that, but for a desktop? I dont think so.
Guess I will have to wait until I get my hands on it to know for sure.
I really dislike this trend in UI design. The reason is simple: I want a fair chance to discover how to do stuff on my computer. I don't want to read handbooks or worse, watch tutorial videos.
The point of a good UI is to make a handbook superfluous.
interesting to see how much commotion this apparent change has caused, since it's almost purely cosmetic - the actual start menu itself was gone (or replaced) already in the DP.
And yes, that seems silly and inflammatory... but it has all the hallmarks of Vista's over-zealousness, last minute changes and disdain for Microsoft's core customers.
Good. The variety of uber-usable menus in Linux for many, many years has spoiled me and I always wind up resenting almost every bit of the Start menu experience when using Windows. I love to espouse about Cardapio because it's that awesome. cardapio: http://i.minus.com/i9sRs.png
I think it's going to be jarring to move between classic and Metro modes, but I don't think there's a clear way for Microsoft to alleviate that. I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that there is a tablet paradigm that can live alongside the regular desktop paradigm. I think there are some that expect Microsoft Office and a twitter app to be equally usable via a mouse and a finger and I'm not sure that's entirely reasonable. At the very least, the hacker in me has no problem with needing to break out a mouse and keyboard to really get things done.
I'm not so sure that the need for touch is really that great in a desktop environment. It's probably cool for someone looking over your shoulder and wanting to take control of your computer. But for sitting at the computer and making something happen... I don't think the usability needs to be 'equal'. And in the desktop world it should favor the keyboard/mouse.
Here's an anecdote for touch vs. mouse/keyboard:
Pretty sure I'm not - nor is my family setup - typical of a windows user. We have two touchscreen desktops in our house.
I have a two year old that can work the touchscreen very proficiently. My 5 & 7 year old stick with the mouse and never use the touch, I almost never use touch, and my wife rarely uses it.
Based on my personal observations, on the desktop, touch is good for very new users or those who lack the physical coordination to control the mouse and keyboard. Otherwise, mouse and keyboard wins.
The Windows 8 mouse experience is really lacking at the moment. I expect that gets a major update in the next version.
I agree with you, that was the point of my post. I think that touch interfaces and desktop interfaces can stay distinct or complementary. I think there is an expectation that Windows 8 must make a touch based app great in desktop mode and vice-versa which I think is untenable.
It's like old efforts to make cars and vans run on the same body. The cars handled like vans and the vans handled like awkward cars.
If you're looking to only use a mouse, I suspect you will be spending time in Desktop mode. I know that the CTP has enhanced the mouse support in RT mode, but it's still touch-first apps. I don't like tablets and don't love the nature of touch interfaces and I know that I will not be happy with a mouse and WinRT mode ever. Frankly, if the buttons and layouts are accommodating for touch interfaces, it's NOT going to be optimal for use with a mouse. (I think some additional evidence of this would be the intrusion of ribbon into Windows Explorer. IMO it's pretty obvious that it's motivated by touch interface needs.)
I think there is a lot they can do to make moving between metro and the desktop less jarring. They could very easily skin the desktop away from faux 3d glossy semitransparent things to solid colors for window borders and menus with clean edges, icons, and text.
In the developer preview it looked awful to have the black windows button on the aqua 3d suparbar. Why not just make the whole thing black? I think the desktop would look great with solid white / colored windows over a good photo.
Cardapio (in most major Linux distros) is almost always, at most, two levels deep, categorized by app, and doesn't include a per-app folder including 6 different shortcuts, readme, uninstaller, etc. It's much cleaner to skim through, it's much easier to find, say, an "Internet" application out of all of them installed, has search and favorite folders baked in.
It might be the same functionality, but that's not really saying much. Linux and Windows fundamentally offer the same functionality.
No sane corporation should allow itself to become a guinea pig for even-numbered Windows releases. Me (4?) was horrible. XP (5?) was OK. Vista (6?) was a bomb. 7 was OK. 8, meh. 9, maybe the tablet fad will pass by then.
When I look at things like the Samsung Series 7 Slate, I don't think tablets are a fad. It's a laptop with a portable screen, or a tablet with a dock and a keyboard. It's running a full OS, with real hardware backing it. How many times have I wished I didn't have to undock my laptop and lug the bulky thing over to a coworkers desk to show them something when all I needed was the screen?
Tablets may not be a fad, but I sure hope tablet style interfaces for laptops and desktops are. The UI should be adapted to input devices and screen size.
Really I think the push is that desktops will be relegated to only the most power users. Already laptops are king even in business. Tablets are an extension (or evolution) of that. Desktops are those mainframes you run at home to store your movies and play your video games.
Desktops will increasingly have to prove their value in the market. In a world of booming connectivity and mobility, desktops (and even laptops) are legacy technology. All hail gestures and keyboard shortcuts.
I believe it is laptops which tablets have made redundant, and desktops which actually have a more valuable usage case at this point. A laptop only makes sense if you need to set up a workstation for productivity in several locations, which limits the target market to traveling business professionals. Most people don't do extended productivity work from multiple locations, however. For people who simply need a mobile device for recreational use, a tablet is vastly superior, with its extended battery life and ease and comfort of operation. For those who only need to have a workstation at a single fixed location, a desktop is the superior option, as the large screen, full-size keyboard and mouse are positioned in an optimal ergonomic manner, with the screen at eye level, keyboard and mouse at proper height and distance, etc., allowing for extended usage without repetitive stress injury. A desktop for productivity and a tablet for casual mobile use represents the most comfortable, ergonomic and financially justifiable option for the largest segment of the market; it's laptops which are imminently doomed to niche relevance.
Either way the market goes, it will be interesting to see the adaptations. One thing the tech market shows, there's no way of knowing which technology will explode (and it's not always the most useful tech that wins).
Well, you have to look at those versions a little bit finer grained. Windows NT 3.51, 4.0, 2000 and XP were all very usable in a business environment; Windows 95, ME and Vista not so. Windows 7 seems workable, and with Windows 8 it seems that Microsoft wants again to alienate their business public, catering to 'consumer tablets' instead.
The funny thing is that during all those transitions, the basic Win32 API stayed more or less stable. The programs I wrote for XP (or even Windows 2000) still work well in Windows 7. They just don't have the visual bling (which my customers don't need anyway).
Don't think too hard about Windows version numbers; your head will asplode.
Windows Vista is Windows NT version 6.0; Windows 7 is actually version 6.1. Similarly Windows XP was version 5.1; its predecessor, Windows 2000, was 5.0.
Windows Me was version 4.9 of the Windows 9x code base (whose first version -- as an obvious successor to Windows 3.x -- was 4.0, Windows 95).
Well, then it looks like X.1 is what you want, at least since 2001. There was a grain of truth in the old "enterprise" adage, "Don't use X.0", after all.
If I remember well, XP wasn't received with great enthusiasm either. A lot of companies remained on Windows 2000. XP became good with the release of SP2.
There was a mega post at the build windows blog justifying (rationalizing?) their decisions. It's interesting reading to slog through. They've certainly put a lot of resources onto this decision, and it feels like the future of Windows based desktop PC's is in the balance. It feels like a really risky bet.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-...
Ideally, MS would add a "Windows 7" mode that I can turn on and use my computer the way I've been accustomed to. I don't want to be learn more efficient with swipes/fewer clicks/etc - I've got a good thing going here. First thing I used to do with XP was switch it to the Windows Classic mode, so I'm probably not their target user.
FWIW, I also dropped Ubuntu post-Unity (running Debian now) and haven't looked back. This dog is too old to want to deal with learning any cheese moving tricks.