Windows Server 8 is a major release though, and really does have a lot of new stuff (Hyper-V v3 (+replication, live migration, clustering improvements), hardware-independent NIC teaming, Claims-based access control, data deduplication, storage pools, SMB 2.2, uninstallable GUI, more PowerShell manageability, etc.). Many of these don't require Windows 8 on workstations, so many corporate users will probably skip this release for their workstations. Server 8 is what will really add a lot to Windows-based environments (for network infrastructure), more than Windows 8 on PCs.
These are true points. To buy some new server licenses and to migrate to w8 server is an option and the costs are straightforward with little effort to realize.
I was one of that large wave of testers that came in with Windows 95 beta 2 (the infamous build 224), and before that, I was an OS/2 tester/developer. Before Windows 95 came along, if a user (never mind a developer) wanted to get serious with 32-bit applications, OS/2 and NT were the only options. While OS/2 had hardware requirements little greater (in fact, no greater) than Windows 3.x, it lacked support for most productivity applications. Windows NT was cursed with higher hardware requirements than either OS/2 or Windows 3.x. (Never mind that either also cost more than Windows 3.x.) Windows 95, even in beta form, supported all the hardware (and most of the software) that Windows 3.x - and, surprisingly, Windows NT - did (one of my favorite "say WHAT" tricks was to run Windows NT applications in Windows 95 - completely untouched) without the NT hardware tax. Windows 98 was okay - but really came into its own with 98 SE. 98 SE would also be the last non-NT Microsoft OS I would run on my own hardware - I avoided ME like the plague. (I ran - and recommended - Windows 2000 Professional instead.) The problem with Vista wasn't Microsoft - but poor support from OEMs/IHVs. (I migrated both myself and Mom to Vista - from XP - without a quibble.) The reality of Windows 7 is, in point of fact, that it is basically Vista with better hardware support - there aren't that many new features in 7 compared to Vista, and most of them are, in fact, window-dressing. (While it's really good and usable window-dressing - Superbar, I am referring to you - it's still window-dressing.) Now to Windows 8. Metro is, in fact, more window-dressing - consider that traditional applications and games don't break, even with Metro as the chosen UI. (That little-reported-on fact - that there are close to zero issues with existing applications with the WDP - is monstrous compared to previous developer previews of Microsoft OSes. It also shows that Microsoft paid a great deal of attention to application compatibility - even with the new window-dressing.) There are some new features outside of Metro (like the much improved Task Manager and disk-image handling compared to previous versions of Windows); however, like Metro itself, even they largely fall into the window-dressing category. That is why I see the majority of complaints about Metro as like complaining that the window shades are the wrong color.