I loved the suggestion They should condense it to the "W8" or "wait" UI. I wish I had thought of that! I know what I'll be referring to Win8 from now on. :-D
As nice as that may sound, I don't think Windows 8 is a 'wait' UI. Once you learn how to use it properly it's actually significantly faster than Windows 7.
Vanilla Win 8 install on a bootable vhd on my notebook runs noticeably faster than a vanilla install of Win 7 on the same machine. Also, once you come to terms with the start screen just being a full screen start menu (less than an hour of use), the whole thing just kind of makes sense. I don't use Win 8 differently than Win 7, when all is said and done, other than small productivity increases from everything seeming to be quicker to find/access.
What's faster? I've never read even the most fervent proponent advocate it as either a more efficient or speedy (from a usability) perspective. That isn't to harsh on it -- the compromise is better touch usability and purportedly better aesthetics, although that is deeply subjective.
From a usability perspective, the start screen is faster than clicking items on the start menu. MS wrote a very convincing blog post on the matter full of statistics (which i agree with mostly).
Similarly, the ribbon interface in explorer allows for quicker access.
It also has lower requirements than windows 7 IIRC, so that indicates it should be snappier, and it has faster boot times.
From a usability perspective, the start screen is faster than clicking items on the start menu.
However, that's only true because Microsoft kneecapped the Start menu in Windows 7.
I wouldn't use Windows 7 without Classic Shell (http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/) and I'm sure the same will be true for Windows 8, if/when I'm forced to move to it.
