It might work on a touch screen system, but on a desktop it's truly bad.
Main gripes were the interface - Metro looks like a three-year old ate a packet of brightly coloured crayons and then vomited over the screen. The user experience is schizophrenic, it's almost like there are two duelling OSes competing with each other. You are faced with unnecessary mouse clicks to get to desktop (who, oh why, don't they provide an option to set it to start in desktop each time?), gratuitous hoops to jump through do do tasks that used to be easy, and the start button should have been left in for those used to it. The whole UI is counter intuitive, inefficient, and just plain butt-ugly.
We sent the box back, and told IT that we would in effect burn them alive, torch their cars and kill their cats if they ever tried to upgrade us to that stinker of an OS.
Personally, I won't be upgrading. I will delay upgrade of my venerable system to a new box that I was planning to get in January. If I can wait I will sit it out until Windows 9 in the hope that MS will fix this mess. If not, I will either spec Windows 7 or get an Apple.
It's kind of funny, I have been with Windows since the 3.11 days, and haven't used a Mac since the Mac Classic days. Years of marketing by Apple has never managed to convince me that I want an Apple, or should contemplate paying the premium mark-up to get one. However, MS has managed to convince me to seriously look in this direction in a single afternoon!
(I am prepared to accept that, of you can cope with the ghastly colour screen, Metro might be usable on a tablet. But why try and force desktop users with keyboards, mice and no touchscreens into a tablet paradigm?)
So, coming back to the "yes or no" question the thread poses - a resounding no from me.