A questionable statement to make to say the least. I do use Windows 8 (with a start replacement and the theme from the RP) but if Windows 8 was an improvement on the desktop front as they claim the lack of tablets would not have mattered. The public are sending a message with the weak sales Windows 8 machines are getting and I hope they're heeded because Windows 8 is a solid OS once you get past the start screen and the butt ugly theme.
Windows 8 is a solid OS period - the problem (for OEMs) is that the hardware requirements (when it gets down to cases) are not merely similar to Windows 7, but identical to Windows 7.
Windows 8 replaced Windows 7 because I can run more applications.games/etc. - at the same time, and on the same hardware - compared to Windows 7.
However, how old IS Windows 7?
How long had Windows 7 been available when Windows 8 launched?
Basically, how old is the Windows 7 hardware base?
Also - and the question has to be asked - what percentage of the entire Windows 7 hardware base is unsuitable for Windows 8 (broken, too little hard drive, too weak GPU, etc.)?
What a lot of us are forgetting is that it isn't JUST Windows 8 vs. Windows 7, it's the Windows 8 OEM hardware vs. the existing hardware base, of which Windows 7 comprises a large number, but likely not the largest number.
There are doubtless some that are standing pat with Windows 7 (or Vista, or Linux, or even XP) - however, others may have simply grabbed a Windows 8 upgrade. Those aren't OEM sales - if anything, they are LOST OEM sales - however, they ARE sales of Windows 8.
We're getting hard data from the OEMs now - and the usual trend (big OEM sales numbers) is NOT there this time. However, 70 million Windows 8 licenses sold to date (and in less than six months) is an all-time record for ANY version of Windows. Given the lack of OEM sales, there's head-scratching and finger-pointing going on.