Sorry to take so long replying...
I think XP, when it was current, was very much a plateau. Every CPU generation had seen a jump in performance, until with XP they started bumping up against the frequency limitations of what was possible. XP was also a bit bloated [compared to 98], with some features that more hard core techs &/or gamers deemed unnecessary, some for appearance only -- I remember there were quite a few people online complaining about the "Fischer-Price" look of it.
Back then every Windows version meant new software [or software versions], so to run new stuff you needed the latest Windows, but then there was also more software development going on, much of it from companies that have since disappeared. A new version of Windows also meant new drivers, and if the manufacturer of your printer for example didn't release any for that new version, you had to buy a new printer. At the same time, if your printer died, the one you bought to replace it might only work in the latest version of Windows. So I *think* people tended to adopt the latest Windows version, whether they grumbled about it or not.
XP was an excellent break from that, a great place to stop & rest. A more diverse demographic of people & companies started using PCs, a number of software companies with recognizable names were fading, and the software & hardware didn't demand more. Microsoft flirted a bit with media PCs, 64 bit computing, hand-helds etc., while they moved more aggressively into embedded systems & kiosk setups like ATMs. Life was good, but Microsoft needed a Next to keep up the revenue stream. And for the last time they used their old model of developing Windows, with Vista requiring new drivers & new ways of writing software, same as the progression leading up to XP -- & it failed.
In many ways the software requirements were not set in stone, & when Windows 7 appeared most software developers wrote code that could have been designed exclusively for XP -- ironically by not forcing developers to write *just* to their new, preferred model that debuted with Vista, Microsoft enabled the one thing they wanted least, the long term survival of XP. If Windows was the only determinant I personally think 7's adoption would have peaked, & fewer total copies would have been sold. Then again if 7 had been easier to crack, had XP's level of DRM & DRM enforcement, you wouldn't have XP's 25% marketshare in China either.
But Microsoft isn't the only company that makes money from new PCs etc... Intel & AMD focused on CPUs with multiple cores across the full range of performance levels &/or pricing. 7 can take advantage of that in ways that XP simply cannot. And with 7 Microsoft [finally] got a handle on 64 bit -- maybe ironically with 10 it's 32 bit they've had problems with [solely based on my own experience]. 64 bit Windows only really makes a difference in higher end software & more serious gaming, but there it can be a requirement. So with the combo of 64 bit, & better, or at least more efficient multi-core performance, Windows 7 became the new plateau. All the bells & whistles Microsoft added to 7 I think had little effect -- I think to this day many [perhaps most?] win7 users are unaware of many of the features added to 7, so now with 10 many of those have been stripped out or moved to separate apps.
And I think 7's a plateau because like XP for a while, there are few what I'll call Hard practical reasons to move on, unless you want/need a touchscreen, or unless you're a gamer [folks using Steam have some of the highest 10 adoption rates]. There may be hardware developments in the future that make a Windows version upgrade warranted [just like with XP -> 7], and there is a chance that Microsoft will be successful moving most current win32 & .NET apps to their store model, which would require the latest Windows version. My personal feeling is that because both of those possibilities are just that, possibilities, Microsoft will force the issue, ramping up pressure as they feel necessary. I also feel that it's mostly tech oriented folks who will be bothered by that.
And tech oriented folks are making up an increasingly smaller percentage of the market. I'll even dare to include many of those people working in IT in the non-tech category -- working with PCs & servers & networks is common enough nowadays that to many it's just another job, approached with the same "whatever" attitude we find omnipresent everywhere else. After all, as new revelations about terrible security, leaks, & breaches continue to come out re: the U.S. gov & its IT operations, how else could you consider the gov employees that were & are responsible?
This is the part that I've been struggling with for a few reasons... I don't want to offend anyone etc., but primarily and as a rule I don't like to write anything tech related unless A) it's something I've experienced myself, &/or preferred, B) it's documented, so anyone can confirm what I wrote using Google. This instead is based on decades of marketing, learning, & personal experience -- the essence of what I've written so far could be found in a few Google searches, but to verify this part would take a bit more effort. I'm Not saying it's unassailable or that I couldn't be wrong, but I just feel better knowing that if someone does disagree, it would only take a few moments for anyone reading the exchange to Google & see I didn't just pull something out of my hat.
Trends are often set by marketing. Marketing is about far too much money to not be based on science, despite the fact that it often seems to be shooting in the dark, with blanks, wearing a blindfold. Ayurveda has body types -- Marketing has stereotypes. Type casting may be politically incorrect, but it does have some basis in fact, & no matter how inaccurate it can be, it's better than absolutely no data when sometimes millions of dollars are involved. If it bothers anyone please substitute the more PC term: market demographics. With tech that stuff has something to do with how products are marketed, & how they're received by segments of the market.
People as a whole are fickle... this is something marketing has dealt with since the 1st village marketplace. Sales as a profession or discipline wouldn't, couldn't exist if not for that. Communications have exploded, in no small part because of the Internet, causing 2 things [among Many others] to happen -- it's much easier to market new products &/or services, & it's much easier to acquire, hold onto, & develop ideas, attitudes, & opinions that are somewhere between dubious & flat out wrong. It's easier to market because costs are so low. And because there are so many ways & places to communicate, it makes it easy to segregate ideas, attitudes, & opinions. Stuff that people wouldn't say to their neighbors, they'll now shout among others of like mind online.
[That last BTW is *I believe* at least partly responsible for online services &/or sites often being strong defenders of things most people find offensive -- while it's cloaked in the more palatable claim that they're defending free speech, if they banned that sort of thing they might lose a big enough portion of their user base to matter *to them*.]
That fickleness plus the low cost of marketing means that you can bring something to market fast & cheap, & then if it's a hit, develop it almost dynamically to suit new, potential buyers. I don't believe that there have ever been so many products, services, & ways to make your life better &/or easier, at least going by everything that assails you until you're numb. That's how Microsoft is doing Windows 10 -- minimum development costs, releasing an immature product, focusing on what users want next via feedback, only missing the big marketing push because they've never understood or done that well. Microsoft has OTOH really pushed hard in the realm of viral marketing, though instead of relying on users spreading the word, they've turned their army of Microsoft certified tech workers into evangelical true believers in the faith of 10.
[The best example I'm aware of is the trial balloon or rumor (take your pick) that Microsoft is thinking about how to bring their store &/or 10 to other platforms, e.g. Android. It's widely acknowledged that the 2 factors that led to Windows phone demise were Windows & their store -- the phones themselves were like all cell phones, assembled from more-or-less off the shelf components. I think the only plausible reason for Microsoft leaking this is Wall St., though I could be wrong. And while I can't imagine anyone taking this seriously, at least some of the folks marching in Microsoft's army for 10 talked as if it were a beacon from above.]
I think it's hard to quantify the effects of the online segregation of ideas &/or beliefs -- by its very nature, talking about it in any way that might be taken as negative would be poking the dragon, so it's not something likely to be discussed online. The closest I've seen to any consensus is communities on the political left assailing communities on the right, & vice versa. As it relates to tech, I think it can enable word-of-mouth marketing, or lead to the doom of a product. It's not unique to the online world -- we've seen [& see] stratification in societies, schools, etc. -- but when something's new, before any sort of universal opinion can be formed, an online community might insulate someone's views, prevent them from being contradicted early on before that opinion solidifies.
Marketing targets these groups or communities, sometimes successfully. It can be useful to remember that group-think can be extremely inaccurate, &/or if it catches on to a big enough extent, effect the market & what's offered in the marketplace.
When you've got all this marketing noise coming from all quarters about all sorts of new products that in many [most?] cases are duds, numb can be a comfort. Looking for simple answers is understandable, though maybe sadly, I'm not at all sure that simple answers exist. Maybe because of that desire for simple answers, maybe empowered because nowadays anyone & everyone can have a voice, some people represent themselves as expert that aren't at all qualified, & with the segregation present online, they &/or their wrong ideas can gather quite a following, one that's sometimes rather vicious in expressing its loyalty. Marketing naturally targets those they call influencers.
Very often if you don't see much dissent, or if it seems to be dealt with severely, that's a bad sign. That Does Not mean whatever won't be successful, but rather that it might be a poor product that you might find unsatisfactory. I've seen signs of this with Windows 10 in some communities, with Facebook in others & so on. A practical example, on Amazon I look for & read reviews with the worst or lowest rating -- sometimes they're just junk reviews [crackpots etc.], but often they're the only source for a product's weak points. That's because Amazon & their communities tend to promote positive reviews.
People clinging to wrong ideas &/or notions have always existed. Same with the people to whom "Whatever" represents the breadth & depth of their life philosophy. The clingers are perhaps emboldened by the loud artificial experts, while the "Whatever" crowd finds new sources of amusement in more opportunities to simply screw with people. Both are reinforced by anyone who figures they might make $ off them. The "Whatever" crowd however is the only one of the 2 really influencing the direction of tech, because 1) they're more likely to spend $, & 2) they can be more dangerous when/if they're relied upon.
Data breaches, hacks, theft etc. are just some of the bad things that happen, that cost everyone money, when/if people in certain positions don't do their job. That in turn brings more regulation, & less choice for everyone else. It means auto updates in 10, and things like self-driving cars. Most people don't mind regulation etc. because the costs of such screw-ups can be staggering, & *We* pay for the billions of dollars lost -- a reduction of choice matters more if you were better at something, perhaps a pro, & would have made a choice to begin with. Most people would call for more regulation if they were aware of how insecure the IT was at their hospitals or with the Internet Of Things, so at some point if some event(s) brings it to widespread attention, we can probably look forward to an ill-prepared rush to regulation, along with sometimes botched attempts to comply.
When a popular or somewhat popular product or service doesn't seem to make sense, it can be that it's just outside our realm of experience, & that it's really useful. Or it can be that it's popular among the "whatever" crew. Twitter might be a great example that fits both categories. It's a way to get useful info quickly & easily out into the world -- it's also a home to opinions made because, whatever, that are anywhere from amusing to outright vile, as so many including companies have found out.
Those that seem stuck with wrong ideas &/or notions [I wish saying clingers didn't sound so negative] do so for a variety of reasons, and their somewhat lesser influence on tech is to sometimes hold it back, e.g. U.S. gov IT, or perhaps the U.S. Congress when it comes to regulating IT. Most of the time outside of those protected environs they're ignored, at least online where it's always possible to walk away [perhaps the kindest response?].
With Windows 8 & 8.1 Microsoft did ignore what they probably thought were users stuck in the old ways of doing things, it turned out at their own peril. Twitter was caught in a firestorm of controversy when it was leaked that they might introduce a change recently. With 10 Microsoft has succeeded in sidelining the portion of those Windows users protesting without much in the way of factual data or info, likely because, IMHO anyway, they got it deployed to enough people soon enough that the protesters were drowned out by people who made the switch & survived.
Personally I look at that as a lesson likely well learned... consumers sticking with the old, those inclined to dismiss Anything new, are a pain in tech companies' [bleep]. Those folks can seem to *want* to cause havoc to their marketing plans, yet are rarely Any source of income. I won't be surprised when companies like Microsoft do stuff to marginalize them, though I'll bemoan the times I'm collateral damage.
Personally I think that Dragonlair has the best individual approach -- she determines what she wants, what she needs, does a fact based analysis, & determines what she'll do & how far she'll go to get what she wants/needs. And marketing departments around the world hate her for it. They'll also do everything in their power to prevent that approach from spreading. I'd point to the way that new things are Always sold as cool -- disbelievers are always, Always uncool people who hopelessly just never get it.
