I don't think it's quite that official (Press release saying they messed up?) that Windows 8 was a poor choice for desktops but rather that changing the OS too drastically too fast, results in customer confusion. While it gives the option to boot directly too the desktop rather than only to the Life tiles (or whatever they're called), I think Microsoft will still push support for the tile interface and probably work on help tutorials baked into a future OS release to help customers adapt (unless that was already included with 8).

I think for a corporation to officially admit error, they would issue a press release or some form of a formal acknowledgement other than a confirmation about an update that "brings back the start menu." In fact, Windows Blog states that they are pleased with the progress of Windows 8 so far. And there's no blog post saying "Whoops, we were wrong." That might change at (or closer to) Build on June 26th. Until then, they haven't officially concede anything, I'm not saying they haven't conceded though.

One thing to consider, though, is how many new computers are Windows 8-only, even when they'll be downgraded to 7 from a user-supplied copy (and with no option to upgrade to Pro, where the 7 downgrade is actually legal).

Almost the entire run of Vista, and part of 7's run, you could get an XP downgrade on just about every computer, until about 2011 or so.

That way, Microsoft can seriously boost their Win8 sales stats, and people will suck it up and pay to get a new computer, and then (if needed) pirate a copy of 7 to install over top of 8.

or maybe more people will begin to notice Ubuntu, #!, Parted Magic, and HaikuOS. all i hear about windows 8 is a bunch of change that necessarily doesnt make much sense.

i personally am very happy with using Windows XP, and i dont give a fart if Microsoft discontinued their support for it. until there is a very necessary reason for me to use Win8, or Microsoft fixes the issues and allows 16bit apps to run, i will keep to what i have.

Windows 8 allows 16-bit apps to run if it's the 32-bit version.

Similarly, XP 64-bit does not allow 16-bit apps to run.

oh, thats new. both that 16bit wont work on 64bit anyOS, and that they made a 32bit Win8

Thumbs up to that!

It's a hardware (well, kinda) limitation of 64-bit x86 processors.

AMD's 64-bit mode (which Intel is using) does not support 16-bit code, just 64 and 32. So, you have to run in 32-bit mode to natively run 16-bit code.

Now, there are workarounds. The RISC versions of Windows NT 4.0 and older used a modified version of Insignia's SoftPC emulator, instead of the NTVDM and WoW16 that 32-bit x86 versions of Windows NT (from 3.1 all the way to 6.2) use. However, from what I've heard, the SoftPC emulation wasn't very faithful (I haven't pushed it hard, but I did get my DEC Alpha box to BSOD, with a PCI bus fault(!) trying to run some Win16 programs). And, SoftPC became unavailable in 2001. So, Microsoft would have to write something new from the ground up... when we're talking about ancient software.

Microsoft's solution was XP Mode, which used 100% existing software, for the few remaining things that REALLY needed it.

Windows 8 does introduce one change to 16-bit support: it can now be switched on or off, and is off by default (the first time you run a 16-bit application you get a dialog prompting you to enable support if required).

This does of course only apply to the 32-bit version, the switch doesn't enable a 16-bit emulator that would be of limited use these days. If you're running software that old a virtualisation package is probably the best bet.

Or even straight-up emulation, in DOSBox.

Windows 95 was initially panned because it was such a radical departure. Some people took years to move away from 3.1; not least because the hardware requirements were understated for 95.
I have been using an iPad for data capture at work and frankly it's a chore - but then I have never been an Apple product fan. This taking nothing away from the genius of the Wozniak - Jobs - Sculley empire.

For the consumer versions...

1.x was (rightly) panned for being useless and buggy, IIRC
2.x was (rightly) panned for being somewhat useless and buggy
3.0 was panned for being buggy and RAM hungry IIRC (but people bought it anyway)
3.1 was panned for being really RAM hungry, and not running on an 8088 (but everyone bought it anyway)
95 was (rightly, until OSR2 or so and computers caught up to its requirements) panned for having crazy high system requirements and being buggy
98 was panned for being "95 with IE4", even though it really was better (especially 98SE)
Me was (rightly) panned for being unstable (granted, you could get it right, but Microsoft changed the driver model while still supporting the VxD driver model, and mixing drivers made it crashtastic)
XP was (rightly) panned for being resource hungry, horrendously insecure (until SP2, anyway), having the "fisher price" theme as default, and (this might not have been so rightfully) being somewhat incompatible with old Win9x stuff (Microsoft had gone a LONG way to make sure it did work, and it worked quite well, but not everything worked perfectly).
Vista was (partially rightly) panned for instability (the responsibility also lies with driver makers) and the whole UAC thing (Microsoft's calibration of it sucked, but it was a great idea)
7 hit the ball out of the park, mainly because what it needed was time for the Vista driver base to become good, and 7 was mainly Vista with a few tweaks. It got pretty wide acceptance from launch.
8, well, that's the topic of this thread.

For the business versions...

NT 3.1 was (rightfully) panned for not really having any useful software (compounded by the 16-bit support being mediocre) and being a resource hog compared to 3.1
NT 3.51 was (rightfully) panned for, well, the same reasons as NT 3.1, except not as bad on the whole no useful software front
NT 4.0 was (rightfully) panned for being buggy, and not being anywhere near as easy to configure as 95
2000 was... actually, not panned at all. Everyone was convinced that 2000 was gonna be pretty awesome from the time the RCs came out, and that was right. Quite dated now, but it was quite good in its time.

So, really, EVERY version of Windows except for 2000 and 7, including the "good ones" for their times (3.1, 95, NT 4 (OK, that one's debatable), 98, and XP), was panned.

Depends on who you ask. Personally, I am not concerned with versions before 3.1, as they were only getting their footing. 3.1 - I promise I'm telling the truth - I use frequently, and love it! I have never had a problem with it; it always has been epic for me. Especially with the shell "Calmira", a brilliant software invention. 95, I think, runs great and for its time, runs plenty of software. 98 I would say is a bloated version of 95 - and the same for Me. XP I have very seldom had a problem with, I like the look, and runs real well. Obviously, 2000 runs better, but the compatibility is just, sadly, too far off. Vista I have never had a problem stability-wise with, but it always ran slower than XP, and has (for me) had bad driver support. 7 I need to get sometime but cannot afford.

But as a general rule, I am convinced that Windows gets a worse rap than it deserves.

Then you're talking to the wrong people. I use Windows 8 every day, and I'm quite happy with it.

And no, elfprince, Microsoft didn't "officially conceded" to anything. They're simply bringing back some features and adding more in that people are asking after. That's just called "software development". It's really not that big of a deal.

I certainly have some complaints about Windows 8, but it's not like it's some horrible OS that is impossible to use or something. I find it much easier to use than Linux or Mac, and I definitely like it on my tablet more than Android. We all have our tastes; don't let's be histrionic.