I gotta wonder, is anybody at Microsoft really surprised that their decision to completely rework all of their 25-year standards of how their OS works has side effects of varying levels of bad in a huge number of relatively obscure use cases? This sounds like such a textbook example of why you don't do that.
I'm still running Windows 7 on my desktop PC. It has a mouse and keyboard. I have no intention of ever getting any kind of touchscreen, pen tablet, touchpad, or other alternative input device for it. I'll show some enthusiasm for upgrading when they make the mouse and keyboard first-class citizens again, instead of treating them like an afterthought in an attempt to get some traction on tablets.
Ignoring Modern UI does not make Modern UI completely disappear. Nor does it change the fact that Microsoft thought this was a good idea. Poor usability is poor usability. Microsoft messed this one up, and it will impact them and a lot of peoples perceptions of the future of Windows.
Nonetheless, for most people on this site using Windows, it makes sense to take the relatively simple (for HNers) steps to upgrade to Windows 8 and hide Modern UI, as Windows 8 provides various performance improvements over Windows 7, Modern UI notwithstanding.
I have, and I think he's correct - Metro is fundamentally different than any Windows to date. The evolution from 3.1 to where we are today was slow and steady, with innovation happening in little fits but never breaking with the basic GUI interaction model. Then Microsoft boiled the oceans to give us Metro. It is a clean break.
I'm still running Windows 7 on my desktop PC. It has a mouse and keyboard. I have no intention of ever getting any kind of touchscreen, pen tablet, touchpad, or other alternative input device for it. I'll show some enthusiasm for upgrading when they make the mouse and keyboard first-class citizens again, instead of treating them like an afterthought in an attempt to get some traction on tablets.