Let's take a look all the way back to Windows XP and the schedule of release dates for new Windows versions that followed. Windows XP was first released October 25, 2001. Then after that, Microsoft began development on the next complete revamp of Windows that would end up being Windows Vista. After the whole "development reset" issue, Vista was finally released over five years later to the public on January 30, 2007. That same month, Windows XP usage peaked the highest it ever would at 76.1% market share worldwide. This means that Windows XP took five years to get to a very high amount of usage.

Since Windows Vista ended up being a ticking time bomb in the minds of almost all its users, Microsoft quickly rushed to release Windows 7, which arrived on October 22, 2009, less than three years after Vista. It immediately received positive reviews and quickly rose in market share to what is now 17%, to be declared Microsoft's fastest selling OS ever. So just three years after, Windows 8 has a planned release. Going back to the original question, why is that a bad thing?

Well, it's not even a bad thing for consumers, it's bad for Microsoft. While Windows 7 has 17% of market share, Windows XP still dramatically dominates the personal computer industry with 54% as of March 2010, and that's nine years after its release. Most people skipped right over Windows Vista, which has around 25% market share right now. Keeping Windows XP has Microsoft's latest operating system for five years was a very bad idea to begin with. This gave users plenty of time to upgrade and get comfortable with the changes in the OS. Since some, and eventually most Windows XP users are finally upgrading (or getting an entirely new computer) straight to Windows 7, three years from now, they aren't going to want to upgrade again.

Users got used to sticking with a specific operating system for a good five years or so. Upgrading in another three is going to be a no-no; maybe even less than three years for those upgrading this year or even next year. Imagine people everywhere saying "I just upgraded two years to this new Windows 7 and now I have to upgrade to Windows 8 again? No thank you." While Windows 7 did have positive reviews unlike Windows Vista, which really helped push sales, it was also because Windows Vista was so dreadful that almost any new operating system had to look better, so Vista users (that didn't already switch to a Mac) immediately jumped on the 7 bandwagon in hopes of finally removing the stress from their computer use.

Unless Windows 8 has some sort of mindblowing, unimaginable feature that pioneers a new way of using the computer and is a must-have for consumers, its possible release in 2012--just two years from now--may have some very slow adoption rates. If Windows Vista was released in 2004, Windows 7 in 2007, and Windows 8 in 2010, there would probably be less issues because people would have gotten used to upgrading every three years or so. But because of the delay on Windows Vista, and the fact that it was so bad, sticking with the older OS was the norm, even for most major businesses that are finally making the very tedious task of upgrading their systems to a new OS.

No one wants to move into a new house right after they finished unpacking and officially called it a home, so it's unfortunately going to be in Microsoft's best interest to soak in all the positive feedback of Windows 7, and maybe put a slight hold on Windows 8.