You know what makes this funny is the fact that one of major complaints against the Aero Glass interface was that it was too hard to see which window was active...
I think the Windows 8 window borders are pretty ugly, but from a usability perspective I prefer them over glass. And then there's the multi-monitor taskbar, the new file copy dialog, the massively improved task manager, the changes to explorer (I'm not a huge fan of the ribbon in this case but it doesn't bother me, and I am a huge fan of "Open Windows PowerShell"), per-monitor DPI and various other changes that to me have made the desktop experience in Windows 8.1 actually better than it was in Windows 7.
And while I don't really use metro apps on my desktop, I do like the live tiles of the start screen, and the all apps view in 8.1 is much better than the cascading start menu. There's only three things I miss from the old start menu: the MRU list, jump lists, and the computer/documents/music etc. shortcuts. That last one I've worked around by pinning those things to an Explorer icon pinned to my taskbar, so that's not really an issue anymore. I would like to have a non-fullscreen start screen, but I've gotten used to the way it is now.
So that leaves really only two things I don't like vs. quite a few things that I do. I don't know what your definition of FUBAR is but it appears to be different from mine.
FUBAR to me implies "completely unusable by anybody, unrecognizable as the thing it's supposed to be, and non-functional at a fundamental level". You cannot simultaneously claim it's not completely unusable and that it's FUBAR.
I agree that Windows 8 borders are ugly, but they've been ugly since Windows XP. I would have had no problems if Aero Glass were still included in Windows 8 as an optional theme. It's my understanding that the motivation was to conserve battery life on mobile devices. I suppose this could have easily been solved by defaulting to an opaque theme but still allow Aero Glass if one wanted it. However, if removal of Aero Glass also meant more stable video subsystem and fewer video driver crashes for Windows, I'm all for its completely removal. If this is not the case, I'm still against putting * back in since there are likely more pressing issues to resolve and because there's a chance of introducing regressions.
The one thing that's indisputable in all this is that Microsoft does a very poor job of convincing people why the changes that it makes benefit the user. This is why we have some people convinced Microsoft is out to make things annoying for them.