Nope, every Windows release suck, but some can be fixed.

"Fixed".

Windows 8 does everything Windows 7 does but it also offers a personalized app/settings/features ecosystem that follows you around on future devices and OS versions. Most people around here (and in general) don't really seem to understand this concept and why it's appealing...

Windows 8 will continue to evolve and should be considered version 1.0 that Microsoft, OEM partners and app developers are going to biuld on for many years to come. I doubt we will ever see Windows 9, but instead I wouldn't be surprised if Microsofts OS just becomes 'Windows' with yearly updates adding features and capabilities.

Chrome OS is doing the exact same thing as is OSX, Android, iOS and almost every other OS on the planet. 

Yes. They've made Windows 7 and Windows 8. Both fantastic operating systems.

The only reason Windows 8 isn't doing well is because Windows 7 is so good that people don't need to upgrade, Windows 8 came out real fast after Windows 7 (there was barely two years between OS's) and because Windows 8 is completely new and people don't like change even if it's for the better.

I've been using Windows 8 for about 3/4 a year now and I can safely say it is better than Windows 7...even on a non-touch screen device.

MS hardly make any revenue from retail upgrade copies anyway. The yearly updates should be free, as a platform for increasing integration into MS's own paid services (Store, Live, Bing, cloud, tablet/phone integration). They will still make Windows money from new PC sales.

MS can't rely on lockin by default, so they need to actually make all these services a better choice than buying into Apple, or Google, or a patchwork of smaller services.

Customers don't care about tech, or features. They know what they want to do with a computer, and it's games/music/video/social/office. MS needs to make it as easy as possible for customers to access the MS version of those things, and stop thinking in terms of software versions.

Now I don't think it will succeed but it's a better strategy than pretending it's 1998.

Alright, "successful" then...

From the article: "A growth rate of 0.4% is absolutely horrendous, and — if we assume that PCs are replaced every five years — actually below the natural attrition/replacement rate."

Meaning people ain't just not upgrading to W8, they're choosing to upgrade to W7 instead of W8.

Appreciate to see a comment that can actually lead to an intelligent discussion...

Yep, its going to come down to services for sure.

Microsoft is arguably #2 or even #1 in terms of integrated services they can offer (depending if you are more consumer or business focused) . The only reason why Windows Phone 7 was even usable wass thanks to Microsofts own services which filled the most basic holes. Now things are picking up with WP8 thanks to W8 and cross platform development.

I am not sure Microsoft will ever be the powerhouse they were in 1998, but what they are trying to do makes sense to me. The Windows RT and Surface play is pretty smart IMO as they are getting their hands in to hardware building and locked down ecosystems.

Essentially when Google gets Chrome OS up to par and starts giving it away for free, and OEM's start to question if paying Microsoft money for an OS is viable, Microsoft can claim the entire X86/RT ecosystem as their own. By then they should have all the pieces in place and kinks worked out and hardware ready to go, by themselves and select few partners like Dell and Lenovo.

This is one of the main reasons why Gabe Newell is hating Win8 and wants to go Linux. He doesn't want to invest in to an ecosystem that isn't completely open which in a few years could be the case with Windows...

I definitely think MS consumer dominance is set to end within 5 years. Not in some spectacular bankrupting way but just that reliance on old applications will lessen, and Chrome OS and other possible competitors (iOS laptops? Samsung fork of some kind?) will become good enough so a customer can use them for everything they'd do in a day. Everyone today still owns an MS device but they don't feel attached to it like they do their phone.

Surface is the part of that strategy that's not working. It's expensive, relatively slow, and limited in what it can do for a consumer compared to an iPad, and certainly some upcoming more polished Android efforts. It's being held back by legacy Windows (even in RT).

Predictions:

AMD and Nvidia to be bought or dismantled for their graphics by Qualcomm, Samsung or Apple. AMD's CPU division and Nvidia's Tegra division are basically worthless.
Nokia to be bought by MS.
RIM is dead.
Sony won't die but they won't be leading anything.

Windows XP? 38%?

I have Windows 8 and I can't help but agree that it is pointless for traditional desktop PCs. It was probably worth the £20 upgrade for the few nice things like Netflix Super HD (I don't think it does it through Chrome) and a faster boot time

I also do think that it would be better for touchscreen laptops or hybrids, which I do think are a genuinely good idea. Wouldn't it be good to actually have a semi-continuous user experience over many devices. Use the "Metro" apps when using touch, then go back to desktop mode for Steam and the like and using the new start menu to take advantage of good keyboard short cuts

I disagree with your second paragraph. I think the point of the surface isn't to take the word by storm as Microsoft makes much more money by an Acer OEM Windows license than selling a Surface at this point. The point is to get them some experience with hardware much like Googles Chrome Pixel which is a the best terrible product ever made.

Also the functionality and speed aspect is quite debatable. Windows 8/RT offers a very smooth methro experience and much better multitasking than the tablet competition. As a web developer who works in online advertising I find that even Surface RT is much more usable than the iPad or any Android device out there. Especially after the recent XDA forums jailbreak developemnts and ability to enable flash on every site on the fly as well as recompile x86 apps and run them on the desktop (after jailbreak). I have x86 version of Fiddler running on desktop for web debugging on surface RT no problem and I can log in to Googles DFP ad server and google analytics and get the full features (not just the limited mobile version).  Surface Pro would blow them away the competition for me in terms of functionality.

I do agree that they are too expensive, but that ties in to the first point of Microsoft not wanting to undercut OEMs (yet).