And why do you work with a default configuration? Did you experiment with possible ways to configure your interface and found that default is best? Or just gone with it because you didn't want to waste your time on this? I am just curios.
I think really it must be all about time. Good configuration lets you work faster, there for saving you some time. Not a lot, maybe part of the second at a time, but it all adds up. So now one can save time by just going with default. But then end up working "slower" in the long run. Then more time is lost than saved by using default. If we add "human factor", then everything depends on which configuration person is most used to. So in my personal case, as I am most used to classical interface, I would have to spend more time adjusting to the new interface than I use to configure and tweak it for my needs.
Now going back to the topic, Windows 8 interface is changed so drastically, that I think, I would have to waste a lot of time to configure it into something fast, productive and visually acceptable, plus I fear I even might not succeed which renders my time wasted and this leaves negative review to the new windows.
Generally I should not care about this at all, since Linux lets me do anything I want, but sadly windows is still a dominant system in pc world, so I will have to deal with such things when windows 8 will come out. Majority of my clients are conservative people and I am sure very few of them will appreciate this ugly interface of windows 8, so if I cannot adjust it, I'll simply sell a tiny bit (by the world scale) less windows, yet everything adds up. However this might be a good thing and I should ask to leave this metro interface as only choice?
Eh well, I am confused. Must be tea time