Don't know about the eye candy not being part of the cosmetics that people look for in a new OS.
Most people who are Not users like the us, don't care too much about performance and enhanced
this or that. They just want a PC and OS that can do what they bought the machine to do.
If they encounter errors or have questions then, they come to us to help solve them.
I for one, do like the eye candy and have a PC that can handle both performance and eye candy.
If I am to buy a W9 then , it had better have all the bells and whistles I want to see in a new OS.
Frankly, Windows 8 (or 8.1) did not offer an appealing design. The colors were from the last century and the square shapes reminded me of Win3.1. I think even XP looked better (before it became too boring after so many years). 7 certainly looks better, although I can understand that some people might choose to turn off Aero and not use any of the glass features. But that's the point - in 7 there is a choice, you can set up the desktop any way you like it. In 8 the choice is gone - everything is flat and square. I did not try third-party stuff, such as WindowBlinds, after all, why do I need to run third-party stuff for something as basic as windows?
As to whether it's important or not - it's clearly a matter or personal preference. I like Aero, but many others do not. It's clear that there has to be a choice.
I agree it would be great to have a choice, but whether MS agrees with us is another matter. It might just come down to whether you as a user are willing to adapt to what MS gives you, or whether you search for other options, because realistically, I doubt they will go down the tubes financially if they don't.It's clear that there has to be a choice.
Also, aesthetics. If you have noticed, the Xbox platform, Windows Phone, Bing, Outlook.com, Windows and everything else Microsoft is ditching the old Aero styling or xp era styling of gaudy push buttons and faux lighting and faux textures in lieu of modernist Bauhaus inspired design. Having Aero transparency or even Aero styling as an option in Windows 9 kind of throws a shiny, gradient drop shadowed wrench at that. They want to push a unified aesthetic that is digital and modern versus pushing your GPU just to show some eye candy. And continuing on that note, the target devices that will run Windows 9, like anything battery operated, needs to run as efficiently as possible. An example of that working is the HTC One M8 with Windows versus android. When the HTC One uses Windows Phone, the battery life lasts three hours longer than using android, a platform that pushes eye candy and everything opposite Windows Phone and more Windows vista.
Opinions and preferences are nice and all, we'd all love as many options as we'd like, but a line has to be drawn. Better efficiency and battery life trump pushing the GPU to just simply display the UI of the platform. And personally, I'd rather have an efficient desktop system than one using more power than necessary just to run the OS. I'd rather dedicated the remainder for Photoshop CC and GTA IV (YAY!) and other processor hungry programs.
But that's just me.