Thanks to DaringFireball for linking to this article:

One point the article touches on is Microsoft's steadfast belief in basing everything off of the Windows or Office platforms. I was thinking of this during the Surface announcement. They made a point even in that announcement to drive home that Windows was the center of everything they do and Surface would continue the trend.

Microsoft has always suffered from the fallacy that success equates to popularity and therefore, in the case of Windows as a brand name, in brand recognition and loyalty. Does anyone outside of Microsoft think that "Windows" is a powerful brand in terms of loyalty or inspiration? Recognizable of course. For corporate IT it certainly carries weight as a known quantity. But I think few Windows users have an endorphin rush (aka happiness, elation, wonder, creative flow) at the thought of using anything related to Windows. I've seen indifference, acceptance, and apparent cases of Stockholm syndrome. I do know people who love Windows but they are by far a minority.

It's puzzling then that Microsoft would so adamantly try to tie Windows to everything they do. Even in diversifying their business they keep everything chained to this legacy brand. I think they would do better to break from Windows, even if it was still the same underlying software... they could have done this with Metro, maybe on a tablet called the xPad to play off a brand that has some cachet among consumers.

I think if the Surface gains traction in the consumer space, it will be in spite of Windows, not because of it. It will be because it is compatible with legacy systems they have been forced to use at their employers. Again, it could be successful for the same reasons Windows was, but not because it's popular.