Meh, this has been the same with every new version of Windows. When Windows 95 came out, there were whole wars between supporters of Windows 3.11 and Windows 95. With the result of XP, whole tribes claimed that Windows 95, Windows 98 or even some Windows ME was much better. With Vista, 7, 10 and 11 again, there are always large groups of people claiming that the new OS would be a step backwards from the previous one.

From my point of view, only two versions have actually failed: ME and Vista.
I too was meant to fail. It was an attempt to extract the last bit of money from the 16-bit processor market. It also must have been intentionally poorly manufactured, to force people to use a 32-bit processor.
Vista is explained by the fact that MS realized they had messed with the Longhorn. They spent a lot of time in the Longhorn and then suddenly a replacement had to come quickly, or else the marketing department would have nothing to do.

Anyway, for Windows’ market dominance, it all makes for a little Flauss aus.
Microsoft can tolerate flip-flopping with the operating system. If necessary, they will also keep Windows 10 running for 14 years, just like XP