Well if Microsoft changes the interface minimally with every version of Windows and always gives access to classic GUI, it wouldn't be so impossibly hard to migrate. Look at Windows Explorer. Massive interface changes in Windows Vista, again in Windows 7 and again it's getting the ribbon now in Windows 8. Same story with Control Panels of Windows, networking, search-there is a too minimal UI for search now! Start menu interface changed and Classic is no longer an option. Office and Windows Live interfaces changed with no option for older interface. New interface is not conclusively better, it is always subjective. People are short on time and find a steep learning curve when forced to learn new UI constantly. Windows Media Player changes interface with EVERY version. Live Messenger changes interface. IE9 does it finally. Constant GUI changes are not easy for people to digest which is the single most dominant factor why legacy software is dominant. People only want to learn software once, they don't want the time they invested in learning it once go waste and learn it all over again. Microsoft should consider having a major sea-change of policy to preserve GUI as far as possible and change it minimally, like it used to with products before Windows XP, IE6 and Office 2003. Expecting users to constantly adapt to changing interfaces is not right.

Just think how different that last five years would have been if Vista had just been a faster, safer 64 bit version of XP.  Not saying things would be better (hey, MS finally realized they needed to listen to us), but you have to admit Jim Allchin changed the landscape.

XP by todays standards is crap. All I'm sayin.

@7flavor, you call adding the Ribbon to Windows Explorer in Windows 8 minimal? You just contradicted yourself right there? On top of that, consumers are not afraid of change, Facebook changes its look more than Madonna, yet people stick with it making it the biggest social network, the Internet changes constantly, yet consumers adjust. The plethora of browser brands out there and their growth proves that consumers are not afraid of trying something different.

It is not change in the user experience that affects whether businesses leave Windows XP for Windows 7, its Windows XP being good enough, application compatibility and the cost involved with migrating, licenses, not just the Windows and Office licenses, but for other applications. Of course Microsoft has the tools to ease this. The growth in MacBook Pros I see out there show that consumers are not afraid of using different platforms, so why should a new version of Windows with some improvements be any different?

All I know is, just about all software and hardware works fine with XP, but with Vista/Win7 we have lots of issues with software and hardware not working properly.  XP is just less hassle, we have tested our software on XP and Win7 and there is no performance gain with Win7.  Win7 has the option of running legacy software in XP Mode, but which IT department wants to support two OS's on every machine?  You still have to install anti virus software on the virtual XP machine and it IE6 installed on it which is a security risk and its slow, and requires more memory, more disk etc.  Who wants that?

I still thinking Windows XP is the fastest OS from Windows and really easy to use. I know Windows Vista dan Windows 7 has good appearance but not easily to share something for security purpose. If Windows can develop something that has speed like XP and has security option as good as Windows 7 it would be the best. GUI maybe something important for navigation purpose but if that make everything become more slowly, that would be hard for user.

These are all interesting points. You should submit these to the VRT as questions to be discussed.