I more or less completely dislike change in my desktop environment. That said, I think there's room for some innovation, particularly simplification, in the Linux space. And if this creates a usable alternative for people, so much the better.
And there's been little reason for it. Once people understand how to interact with the basics of their interface, there's little gain, and a lot of cost, to changing things.
Most computer interaction is textual. Some isn't. Supporting text, formatted text, images, video, and sound is pretty much the entire scope of what needs to be done.
The best interfaces haven't changed much. Apple's Aqua interface is hardly changed from its introduction in 2000 -- that's 14 years. Some visual elements have been modestly restyled, and virtual desktop support added. That's pretty much it.
Other attempts to push radical UI changes on users have been dramatic failures, whether from Microsoft or Linux. Windows 7 was an absolute flop, and I'm among those who've been massively disappointed and frustrated by the GNOME 3 and KDE 4 transitions. While neither is my primary desktop, I do interact with them occasionally, and with apps designed for them more frequently. The experiences have been disappointing and frustrating, to say the least, as well as the attitude shown toward users by the development teams (Linus Torvald's outburst to GNOME was pretty much on point).
The place to experiment, IMO, is precisely where LXQT is: in an experimental space, away from the mainstream. If the desktop does prove useful, people will tend to migrate toward it, as has happened with the xfce desktop: not as featureful as GNOME or KDE, but vastly less frustrating and more useful (I also try it from time to time).
My own home? WindowMaker, which I've used for 17 years. I know it, it knows me, we work well together, and I see no reason to change.
My error then. I'd checked and thought Metro was associated with Win 7. I've used Windows so rarely in the past decade I'm not familiar with the specifics of which UI goes with which release. Though now that I think about it, I've seen Win 7 and it's more similar to the Win XP interface.
The first principle of GUIs is that there's been very little real innovation since the first demos at Xerox PARC at the Mother of All Demos 46 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos).
And there's been little reason for it. Once people understand how to interact with the basics of their interface, there's little gain, and a lot of cost, to changing things.
Most computer interaction is textual. Some isn't. Supporting text, formatted text, images, video, and sound is pretty much the entire scope of what needs to be done.
The best interfaces haven't changed much. Apple's Aqua interface is hardly changed from its introduction in 2000 -- that's 14 years. Some visual elements have been modestly restyled, and virtual desktop support added. That's pretty much it.
Other attempts to push radical UI changes on users have been dramatic failures, whether from Microsoft or Linux. Windows 7 was an absolute flop, and I'm among those who've been massively disappointed and frustrated by the GNOME 3 and KDE 4 transitions. While neither is my primary desktop, I do interact with them occasionally, and with apps designed for them more frequently. The experiences have been disappointing and frustrating, to say the least, as well as the attitude shown toward users by the development teams (Linus Torvald's outburst to GNOME was pretty much on point).
The place to experiment, IMO, is precisely where LXQT is: in an experimental space, away from the mainstream. If the desktop does prove useful, people will tend to migrate toward it, as has happened with the xfce desktop: not as featureful as GNOME or KDE, but vastly less frustrating and more useful (I also try it from time to time).
My own home? WindowMaker, which I've used for 17 years. I know it, it knows me, we work well together, and I see no reason to change.