The fact that you had people using IE6 10 years later, but no one using Netscape Navigator 10 years later should show you that IE was pretty darn good.
I have to use IE6 and Windows XP at work

The fact that you had people using IE6 10 years later, but no one using Netscape Navigator 10 years later should show you that IE was pretty darn good.
Of course it would be better to let the user decide what to do, I wouldn't say that not doing that destroys the entire OS though.
What the market wants is not really interesting to me as most users are dumb, many users of the market make their decisions based on fancy advertisements and fanboyism. Market studies show that people have a tendency to be loyal towards brands based on no real objective information at all, they do not compare units to evaluate them on a unbiased level.
Yes, the market is what companies develop for, but it does not mean the markets interest can be used to evaluate if a product is good or bad.
I been using and evaluating everything for the past years and I evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each platform. Currently I am back to a Mac laptop with a rMBP and also back to iPhone after a year of Windows Phone (which had problems with the lack of apps), my desktop is still running Windows though and so will my next tablet.
It has to do with logical thinking that you have to actually look objectively at the product, not go "this is different, therefore bad" as many people do.
Yes I agree that forcing the same input on 2 different types of units with such different input capabilities is quite illogical, still doesn't make an entire OS bad.
Well most major operating systems are the same. Take OS X with the retina displays, you can't even choose your resolution freely without installing third party programs.
As for Modern UI it is only something that I disable on my desktop, on a tablet or such it is working nicely. Disabling modern UI makes it like Windows 7 with improvements, so how could that make it worse than Windows 7? I see Windows 8 as an improved Windows 7 with a different GUI slapped on top.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I am curious though, who (and why) would you consider to be the best software development house in the world?
Why not, who would you call the the best software house in the world?
For power users (which I guess most people are on these forums) you get your desktop experience by installing a simple program. Sure it won't work for old people with no technology knowledge (unless they get help) but for people who know a just a bit about computers it is not a big problem. I wouldn't say Windows 8 is bad because of Modern UI simply because you are still able to use it in desktop mode.
They tried to push the touch UI too much for consumers who have no use for it and cannot understand it. It does not make it a bad OS though.
I think you have your rose colored glasses on. I have nothing to say about MS Bob, but I can certainly attest to Vista and IE6. IE6 was the best web browser in 2001. It supported things like AJAX, which Netscape Navigator didn't. The fact that you had people using IE6 10 years later, but no one using Netscape Navigator 10 years later should show you that IE was pretty darn good.
Likewise, Vista, for all of its problems, wasn't anywhere near as bad as OS X was in the same time frame. Where Vista had slow file system access and poor video driver support due to nVidia, it never had the BSOD issues like Leopard, or glaring data loss bugs like Snow Leopard did. Actually, for Vista Microsoft re-wrote the entire graphics stack without breaking compatibility.
Last but not least, Microsoft supports their older OS's, and works to make them backwards compatible*. Something that Apple doesn't care about at all with OS X.
*About 1/2 way down, search for SimCity without the space
Last but not least, Microsoft supports their older OS's, and works to make them backwards compatible*. Something that Apple doesn't care about at all with OS X.
*About 1/2 way down, search for SimCity without the space
I will have to point out that those figures only include RT tablets, a well known sales failure, and not tablets running full Windows 8, which has performed considerably better. The only real data you should take from that is the usage of Android and iOS and a much better figure to work with would be actual sales statistics.
It's fairly obvious that Microsoft saw Android and iOS as a threat and simply decided they were going to "bulldozer" the entire market by making Windows 8 tablet friendly and charge into the market space by offering a full computer with the same form factor and ease of use. With Windows 8 they're trying to strike Android and iOS in the one place they can, the fact that iOS and Android devices are more companion devices than standalone devices and don't fully fill the computing needs of anyone except those with really basic needs.
Unfortunately Windows 8 was too little and too late (iOS and Android had already worked out the most pressing problems with them) and the same time alienated their basic bread butter market, which also now happens to be a market in decline because of the market they let grow too big before entering.
I'd say they're also repeating this mistake by holding up releasing Office on iOS (and ignoring android) in an attempt to make Office support work as a definitive plus side for Windows 8 and RT tablets as it really was a genuine killer app. The result of this is that office suites that would have been completely laughed out had they released on Windows or OSX have actually found success and even something as basic as iWork on iOS is doing better than what it should.
As for Vista (which was mentioned multiple times earlier in this thread) it really doesn't deserve a very large part of the hate it got. Was it rushed? Yes. Did it crash a lot? Can't deny that. However did it change a lot of things that genuinely needed to be changed? Definitely and this along with developers (of both applications and drivers) not being able to keep up with this sudden change the chaos with crashes, bugs and incompatibility was generally to be expected.