They can't win. If they keep it the same foolish people will say it's neglected and stagnant. If they change it rational people will say it's aggravating and unnecessary. Just look at this Post-WIMP
WIMP interfaces are not optimal for working with complex tasks such as computer-aided design, working on large amounts of data simultaneously, or interactive games. WIMPs are usually pixel-hungry, so given limited screen real estate they can distract attention from the task at hand. Thus, custom interfaces can better encapsulate workspaces, actions, and objects for specific complex tasks. Applications for which WIMP is not well suited include those requiring continuous input signals, showing 3D models, or simply portraying an interaction for which there is no defined standard widget.
Man do I feel the Windows 8 people read from that page. And it's such a load of nonsense. Or are you currently being distracted by the Windows, Icons and Pointer you're using? Should we make the start menu smaller because you want to look at the rest of the screen while simultaneously searching for an app to launch, even if a smaller start menu makes that app harder to find? Notice: "working on large amounts of data simultaneously". This invariably means some contrived example where a user has to pick from 5,000 items in a menu, and can't easily do it. I speak as a former HCI researcher here. And check this out:
Meanwhile, average desktop computers are still based on WIMP interfaces, and have started undergoing major operational improvements to surpass the hurdles inherent to the classic WIMP interface.
This is what GUI designers are being told. That these new modes of interaction are necessarily improvements over Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers. Regardless of whether or not they actually make any sense.