Hololens is not perfect! Interesting link here

"zenplay" wrote:
High-end phones have evolved fast. There has been a spec race among vendors and users still demand greater processing and rendering power for gamining and etc., and now there is the mobile VR.

There seems little doubt from anyone that hololens will be processing significantly beyond any smartphones hence the likely high pricetag. Also the HPU is a complete unknown - no smartphone has any such unit and no-one yet knows even how it is processing the holographic images.

Let alone motion sickness ( since GearVR still lacks in positional tracking ), reviewers of Hololens have reported lags and shudders of virtual objects when their heads moving.

This really isnt the case - most reviewers specifically pointed out how surprised they were that there wasn't lag or judder especially in relation to their experiences with VR. If you are focussing on the very rare instance where someone managed to generate one then I think you are being rather disingenuous. It is way ahead of VR in this area (but it does have the advantage of merging real environments). If there is one area journalists and developers have been in agreement on it's that the Hololens experience with regard to moving is extremely good.

TV/monitors are stationary whereas the view of Hololens is not. Unless its FOV covers most of our view, its usability would be restricted. The effect of holographic objects popping in and out as you move your head would be noticeable and irritating.

Hence exactly my point about TVs and monitors. We can only see the images/text on them when we look at them, yet we manage just fine and relatively their proportion of our FOV relative to Hololens is much less. Being stationery is actually more of an issue.
You could lock a giant TV/monitor to the centre of your view with hololens and never have it disapear.
And who says the images will be 'popping in and out' anyway? Feedback is that the edges will blur making the transition far smoother. Outside of the centre of your visual field visual perception is actually way lower anyway.

Most demos were performed under theater-like dark light settings. I doubt if it works so well in a normal office environment.

They absolutely were not in 'theatre-like dark setting' they were on a spotlit stage! I cant believe your home or office is likely to be brighter than the stage for an international tech demo.
Also have you actually read the journalist experiences? They were again surprised at how well the images worked even with bright objects behind them. You seem to be just inventing problems and issues that people who have actually used the Hololens itself are not reporting (or they do it's a rare exception).

I may be overreacting because there are some people claiming that VR is gone and AR is the future.

Anyone claiming VR is gone is almost certainly completely wrong. AR and VR have different use cases to play to their individual strengths and can happily coexist.
However I have not seen any people claim VR is gone - who are you referring to?

Hololens might have a potential to be adopted soon in practical applications. However, it seems to have been overhyped by MS. When first intoduced, TV was not portrayed as if it would surround all your home and office environment.

TV was pretty darned hyped when it came out. And it developed year on year and is now unbelievably far beyond its early capabilities.
What is the relevance to surrounding your home and office? TV never claimed this. But Hololens does claim this, and has already demonstrated the ability to do this.
Like TV it has colossal potential - why would anyone think the technology won't just improve year on year from its already remarkable first version?