They changed the interface to be more win7 like, since win 8 was such a bomb. Im still seeing no compelling reason to upgrade from win7 (even if its free), or get new machines with anything other than win7. I cant figure out why M$ insists on trying to turn a computer into something that looks like a child's toy. The OS is there for 2 purposes - provide easy access to files and to run programs and then get out of the way.
If Win7 update support ends while Win10 is still their newest OS, Win10 will simply be
tolerable because as the builds advance, it brings back SOME useful and, for me, much used features from Win7, but it still offers me nothing whatsoever that's any more useful than Win7. If they'd done some real improvements like better registry monitoring and trash deletion (although the free Auslogics apps are great for this, they shouldn't be necessary), an improved file system they promised years ago but abandoned, a file system designed to make management and searching our very large modern HDs easier and quicker, it might be worthwhile.
However, from
day one I could see that Win8 was not really an "upgrade" for users, but was nothing more than a desperate attempt by Microsoft to gain a foothold in THE growth sector of the future, mobile computing, the sector where they had (and may still have) a miserable single digit penetration, by creating a UI most appropriate for touchcentric mobile computing devices and FORCING that UI upon the sector they absolutely dominated, the desktop, in the hopes that would result in more users choosing mobile devices with the same UI simply because of their familiarity with it gained on the desktop. Win8 was actually only an "upgrade" for Microsoft. Microsoft has since admitted exactly that.
One of few real advantages for everyone of a common UI across all devices is the possibility of cross platform development. Microsoft is now more aggressively following that path while actually listening to Win10 preview users and implementing some features from Win7 in Win10 while doing what they should have done in the first place, making variants of the OS for different sectors. However, we still end up with a UI that looks like it was designed by Fisher Price because slick appearance features like Aero Glass aren't visible on a smart phone's small screen and, thus, waist processor and battery power. Also, because of the UI paradigm change, we find that paths to OS controls we are familiar with have changed, controls not used by the majority "content consumers" who do nothing more with their computing devices than send and receive emails, browse the web, and twitter (or whatever) images of their lunch, etc.
