The PC (Personal Computer) is a highly configurable and upgradable gaming platform that, among home systems, sports the widest variety of control methods, largest library of games, and cutting edge graphics and sound capabilities.
Apparently, despite a polarized reception and all the nay-saying surrounding it, Windows 8 is selling at just about the same pace as Windows 7. After six months, Windows 8 has sold 100 million copies, same as Windows 7.
There is a slight difference though. For Windows 8 the 100 million licenses milestone was announced 193 days after it was released, while Windows 7 had that figured publicized 160 days after its release as part of a fiscal-Q3 earnings report.
The fact that this handsome figure wasn't part of Microsoft's most recent earnings report suggests that Windows 8 had perhaps not yet sold 100 million copies 156 days after it had been released (which is the time-span the earnings call would reportedly cover).
Here is a graph and some more info, taken from the above article.
Windows 8 has come under criticism from many quarters since its launch, yet consumers are still buying it, for better or for worse. At six months, the same number of licenses were sold for both Windows 7 and Windows 8, according to Microsoft’s own sales figures.
Microsoft on Tuesday revealed that its latest and greatest operating system had passed the 100 million mark. This means that the two grew at the same rate during their respective first six months:
Windows 7 launched on October 22, 2009. In April 2010, Microsoft revealed that through the third quarter (ended March 31, 2010), the company had sold over 100 million Windows 7 licenses, keeping its crown as “the fastest selling operating system in history.” That means 100 million licenses were sold in just over six months, or 160 days to be exact.
Windows 8 launched on October 26, 2012. On May 7, Microsoft revealed that it has sold 100 million Windows 8 licenses so far. Again, that means 100 million licenses sold in over six months, or somewhere under 193 days.
Unfortunately, these numbers aren’t directly comparable because we don’t know when exactly Microsoft saw Windows 8 pass the 100 million mark. Officially, the company only says that it “sold more than 100 million Windows 8 licenses in the product’s first six months.”
We do know, however, that this latest Windows 8 figure was not revealed as part of the company’s last earnings report (the quarter ended March 31, 2013). If the company did, Windows 8 sales would have been across 156 days, less than for Windows 7, and thus it would have seen a higher number of average licenses sold per day.
It’s quite likely that Windows 8 hit 100 million sales closer to 193 days than 156, otherwise Microsoft would have released the news sooner. All that we know for sure is that on a monthly basis, Windows 8 is keeping up with Windows 7.
I don't love some stuff about Windows 8, but it's fine.
The OS is noticeably breezier, faster, and better looking than Windows 7. Seriously, it starts up in like 3 seconds for me, it's great. Plus, if you really want a start menu there are options for that out there. I'm also looking forward to Windows Blue, as it seems to implement some stuff that should probably have been there from the start.
I really like Windows 8, took a while to get used to the start screen but once I had it set up right it was a decent hub to start the day with, News, Weather, Emails, Tweets and Sports Scores all on live tiles in one place, p[lus it takes me the same amount of time if not quicker now to select things from the start screen instead of scrolling the start menu. I really love using the "snap right" function for Twitter and Sports Scores when watching other games. Having emails pop up when recieved is a good touch as well. Plus it boots real fast with my SSD and everything is just so quick. For the 40 dollars I paid for it I'm pretty happy.
win8 is fine for me , sure they failed with the start screen but i barely use it , and when i do its because i put all the control panel settings in the first pane. the rest of the os is fast and reliable.
Windows 8 is fine there is nothing wrong with it so I don't see why it wouldn't sell. Hell you don't need to format anymore (unless under special circumstances)- that shit alone is awesome!
Also if you don't like have a start menu, or the Start Screen then there is an add-on that gives you a start menu and can completely bypass the start screen.
Even having the opportunity to get it for free as part of my Information Systems class wasn't enough to convince me that upgrading to Win 8 was a good idea. That, and the install wasn't really a fan of my image mounting software.
@snail: Yeeeah, remember how Windows 8 was like 25% of Windows 7's price for a while before Microsoft noticed they weren't selling any better than 7 and backed off on that? Because that seems relevant. The idea was that people would upgrade their Windows 7 machines as well as the usual flow of OEM licenses. That graph explains why they changed strategies on that front. It clearly did not work.
Honestly, Win8 as a whole is a bit of a mess, but there are things I do like about it. Startup times are great and, believe it or not, I think Metro (or Win8 mode, or RT or whatever it's called now) is the way to go. I just think it needs to be a lot more flexible on point and click devices, the focus on fullscreen "app-like" software is just too restrictive, and the inability to run the same software on desktop and Metro mode without significant fiddling is absolutely stupid.
Unfortunately, it seems that if rumours are correct, 8.1 will be 8 with Metro for a start menu and focus returned to the desktop, which is acceptable, but not as good as figuring out Metro properly as the main form of interaction. I may have considered an upgrade in that situation.
Upgrading to Windows 8 ended up working out quite nicely for me mediating between my life as a gamer and my life as an undergraduate computer engineer with a part time sysadmin gig. The fact it actually comes with a Hyper-V option made my life so much easier; I've actually found it to run virtual machines better than anything else so I was pleasantly surprised by that turn of events. I can now be doubly productive with two monitors and two operating systems without the need for a dual boot.
I actually haven't encountered any issues aside from the odd compatibility issue with a game or two but I'm not affected too badly as I have another machine that still has Windows 7 to deal with those, thankfully, so those kinds of issues are very minor for me. I can see it being devastating for people who only have one computer and being all about that life, though.
@snail: Yeeeah, remember how Windows 8 was like 25% of Windows 7's price for a while before Microsoft noticed they weren't selling any better than 7 and backed off on that? Because that seems relevant.
That's not what happened at all. The initial discounted price was just that, a discount. During a planned period of time Windows 8 was sold at a percentage of its planned price. They didn't increase its price because it wasn't "helping" or whatever it is you've assumed. It was a promotional campaign for the then-debuting OS.
Unfortunately, it seems that if rumours are correct, 8.1 will be 8 with Metro for a start menu and focus returned to the desktop, which is acceptable, but not as good as figuring out Metro properly as the main form of interaction. I may have considered an upgrade in that situation.
Also 8.1, or "Windows Blue", is going to be a service pack, you won't have to pay for it. And I don't think the Start Menu is coming back, just the Start Button. There seems to be a bit of a focus on desktop stuff, but it doesn't seem like they're diminishing the "Metro" side of things. There are plenty of overall improvements that make it a better product I think.
@snail: Yeeeah, remember how Windows 8 was like 25% of Windows 7's price for a while before Microsoft noticed they weren't selling any better than 7 and backed off on that? Because that seems relevant.
That's not what happened at all. The initial discounted price was just that, a discount. During a planned period of time Windows 8 was sold at a percentage of its planned price. They didn't increase its price because it wasn't "helping" or whatever it is you've assumed. It was a promotional campaign for the then-debuting OS.
You miss the point. At a 40 bucks price point the fact that they didn't improve the pace of... eh... "upgrades" from 7 to 8 is disappointing. Selling something for what? One fifth of the price? and not seeing a sales hike is not a good thing.
So yeah, same pace of sales, but several months of that are at a significantly lower price, which seems to have failed to make an impact at all. Either the OEM figures are so huge that the upgrade market is negligible or the strategy was an utter failure.
Also, I have no question that if they had seen a significant uptick in upgrades during that period and the difference in revenue made up by the app store that would have become the standard pricing. That's the Apple model, which clearly informed pretty much everything about Win8. The appstore crashing and burning probably had as much, if not more, to do with that pricing not becoming official than the actual sales figures.
@snail: Yeeeah, remember how Windows 8 was like 25% of Windows 7's price for a while before Microsoft noticed they weren't selling any better than 7 and backed off on that? Because that seems relevant.
That's not what happened at all. The initial discounted price was just that, a discount. During a planned period of time Windows 8 was sold at a percentage of its planned price. They didn't increase its price because it wasn't "helping" or whatever it is you've assumed. It was a promotional campaign for the then-debuting OS.
You miss the point. At a 40 bucks price point the fact that they didn't improve the pace of... eh... "upgrades" from 7 to 8 is disappointing. Selling something for what? One fifth of the price? and not seeing a sales hike is not a good thing.
So yeah, same pace of sales, but several months of that are at a significantly lower price, which seems to have failed to make an impact at all. Either the OEM figures are so huge that the upgrade market is negligible or the strategy was an utter failure.
Also, I have no question that if they had seen a significant uptick in upgrades during that period and the difference in revenue made up by the app store that would have become the standard pricing. That's the Apple model, which clearly informed pretty much everything about Win8. The appstore crashing and burning probably had as much, if not more, to do with that pricing not becoming official than the actual sales figures.
You can hardly call it an utter failure. The desktop PC market has been declining with the rise of tablets, the fact that the figures hold up to previous results impressed me. There's no guarantee that the similarities with Windows 7's sales will keep up, but so far so good.
I don't know why you find it necessary for Windows 8 to outsell Windows 7. With the way the PC market is these days, I think everyone at Microsoft might as well shake hands at the fact that their latest OS is up to par in sales figures with its previous one.
That is, unless you want to make the point that the figures hold up because Windows 8 is thriving on the tablet space (which I really don't think it is!).
As for the Marketplace yeah, that never did take off. They simply need more apps, and more developers wanting to participate in it. I don't know if they would have stuck to the lower pricing if the Marketplace had been a success though, especially since Microsoft can milk business customers that have an IT structure dependent on them with exorbitant prices on Windows products, as they have done for the past decades.
PC sales dropped 17% over the last quarter when compared with the same period last year and a lot of that blame was put on Windows 8. People don't like change and as someone who works in IT I fucking hate change. Not so much for myself but for the people who I support. Most of them havene't figured out 7 yet so chaning everything again is fucking stupid. Microsoft should be offering more choice and variety, not trying to force people into using their devices in a specific way. The addition of the start button seems like a step in the right direction, now if they'd just stop hiding the shutdown button and get rid of the display designed for touch screens then Win 8 would be great. I cannot figure out why they want PC users looking at that fucking display, it's just doesn't make any fucking sense.
So yeah, same pace of sales, but several months of that are at a significantly lower price, which seems to have failed to make an impact at all. Either the OEM figures are so huge that the upgrade market is negligible or the strategy was an utter failure.
Also, I have no question that if they had seen a significant uptick in upgrades during that period and the difference in revenue made up by the app store that would have become the standard pricing. That's the Apple model, which clearly informed pretty much everything about Win8. The appstore crashing and burning probably had as much, if not more, to do with that pricing not becoming official than the actual sales figures.
You can hardly call it an utter failure. The desktop PC market has been declining with the rise of tablets, the fact that the figures hold up to previous results impressed me. There's no guarantee that the similarities with Windows 7's sales will keep up, but so far so good.
I don't know why you find it necessary for Windows 8 to outsell Windows 7. With the way the PC market is these days, I think everyone at Microsoft might as well shake hands at the fact that their latest OS is up to par in sales figures with its previous one.
That is, unless you want to make the point that the figures hold up because Windows 8 is thriving on the tablet space (which I really don't think it is!).
As for the Marketplace yeah, that never did take off. They simply need more apps, and more developers wanting to participate in it. I don't know if they would have stuck to the lower pricing if the Marketplace had been a success though, especially since Microsoft can milk business customers that have an IT structure dependent on them with exorbitant prices on Windows products, as they have done for the past decades.
I didn't call it an "utter failuer", I called it "not a good thing". I stand by that.
I also don't think it's necessary for it to outsell Win7, you came here touting figures in the defense of Win8, so if you don't mind, I'm going to put the onus of justifying the relevance of sales figures on you, not me. Like I said, I think the failure of Win8 has more to do with the failed attempt at an appstore and the failed attempt at a mass market Windows tablet than it does with sales. If anything, I'd discourage relying on sales figures -or on THOSE sales figures- because they don't detail OEM sales versus business licenses (which the Internet is now claiming are good for any Windows system but get counted for the latest, which I don't think is true) versus upgrade sales versus tablet sales. The one area one can use to present the system as a success or failure is OEM sales, which MUST be down, since the PC market is down, and upgrade sales, and then I'd like to see how those reacted to the price cuts and how they stack up to 7 and Vista.
So yeah, that graph you posted tells me very little, really, I don't claim it's relevant, I'm just pointing out that I find it weird to not see a spike when the system is being offered for 40 bucks down from two hundred.
As for why I think MS would have stuck to the low price... well, that's because Apple does it and Apple makes a ton of money on their closed software environment. Microsoft craves this. They crave it so bad you can smell it on them. They don't see why they can't monetize their dominance on the computing business to be as big as apple, or why they can't compete on the tablet space with them, since software compatibility is an option.
Of course the reason is that they only control the PC market due to the open environment that anybody can code for with no barrier to entry, but hey, if Apple can outpace them, then they are doing the right thing, right? I'm not even going to argue that MS is wrong there. Had they come out of the gate with a Windows 8 that worked as well on computers as it does on tablets, and with a tablet that isn't either heinously expensive or terribly slow, then that may not have been a bad plan. As it is, the execution is poor, and they know it or they wouldn't be reacting so quick to user complaints with 8.1.
If we look at it in terms of "attach rate" that is something like 2.5 apps which is actually quite bad. If we look at it in terms of the app store, I think even the pitiful Mac App Store has more than this right now (although I am not sure). I wonder how many got a cheap/free version of Windows 8 just have one "in case" but haven't activated it yet. I believe the most telling sign was web stats on IE 10 were below IE 9 till it got rolled to Win7.
As my "totally unscientific scientific measure" I look at the Steam Hardware Survey stats. Win7 at 66% while Windows 8 just hit 10%. At least on the gamer side, Win8 is not even close to selling pretty much like Win7.
What I suspect has happened at least on Steam is that people finally getting rid of their Vista machines and replacing them with Win8. In any event, it looks like "Windows Blue" is going to appear before 2014 which I am not surprised. Whether or not they call it Win9 or Win8 SP1 or whatever they need to do something.
ps. Looking at the Steam Hardware Survey reminds me that Intel graphics has surged a lot while ATI has fallen a lot. :/
If we look at it in terms of "attach rate" that is something like 2.5 apps which is actually quite bad. If we look at it in terms of the app store, I think even the pitiful Mac App Store has more than this right now (although I am not sure). I wonder how many got a cheap/free version of Windows 8 just have one "in case" but haven't activated it yet. I believe the most telling sign was web stats on IE 10 were below IE 9 till it got rolled to Win7.
As my "totally unscientific scientific measure" I look at the Steam Hardware Survey stats. Win7 at 66% while Windows 8 just hit 10%. At least on the gamer side, Win8 is not even close to selling pretty much like Win7.
What I suspect has happened at least on Steam is that people finally getting rid of their Vista machines and replacing them with Win8. In any event, it looks like "Windows Blue" is going to appear before 2014 which I am not surprised. Whether or not they call it Win9 or Win8 SP1 or whatever they need to do something.
Two things:
First, What does the app store attach rate have to do with anything? Windows 7 didn't have a built in app store, so it doesn't really factor into a comparison between 7 and 8.
Secondly, you do realize that Windows 7 has been out longer than 8, right? Of course there are more copies of 7 out there right now. The point is that Windows 8 is doing about as well 6 months in as 7 was doing 6 months in.
For the Steam numbers to be compared meaningfully, you'd have to check the hardware survey from April 2010 and compare it to the most recent, comparing Windows 7 numbers then to Windows 8 numbers now.
"Attach rate" doesn't mean anything more than "Sales of Win7 vs Win8". It is just another measure that hopefully reveals something about the market. It means that people who have Win8 aren't grabbing up many apps. Does that mean the store needs more apps, more quality or whatever is something I didn't address or even imply but that the number seems low if it is doing well. Maybe it is proof that "apples are not oranges". Or to put it plainly: No one should be comparing the sales of Win7 to anything else including sales of Win8....just saying.
I use the Steam Hardware Survey as a specific reflection on the hardware gamers tend to use which is clearly not "all computers" where specifically on a video game message board I find it extremely topical. It isn't that there are way more Win7 installs than Win8 but the change aren't coming from one group to another where if I believe what is being stated (Win8 is selling like Win7) the values aren't shifting. Steam users aren't abandoning Win7. Steam users aren't flocking to Win8. Steam users appear to be replacing their old WinXP and Vista machines with Win8. Make of that what you will but I'm not entirely sure that is "Win8 is selling like Win7".
You shouldn't take my observations to mean anything but what that they are my observations. Win 8 may in fact be doing just fine but web and data stats (wikipedia, ars, etc) don't seem to convey. If it is true that Win8 is doing fine, they are "doing fine" in untraceable and untracked ways.
I don't know how anyone can say there's nothing wrong with it. Windows 7 was probably the best OS they ever made. 8 is a UI nightmare. Even if you can get used to the Start Screen it still feels like a computer hiding behind a tablet. If you have a ton of apps there, you have to scroll way over to get to the ones on the right instead of them having it remember where you were the last time you were on it and giving you a simple button to jump back to the start if you want to. Also any programs I want to launch that I don't want on the start menu I have to go into program files and find the EXE to run.
Tons of important stuff is hidden when it should be easily accessible. Why is the shutdown command hidden in the settings option in the charms bar? why can I only get to certain things with key combos with the Win key?
I mostly use Arch Linux with Openbox these days and it's the exact opposite. Pretty much the entire interface is what the start menu was on previous versions of windows, except all I have to do is right click to bring it up. It's really easy to use and I never have to think about the multiple places something could be hidden for me to get to it.
I think the cheap intro price probably propped up win8s numbers a lot more than actual customer interest. Now that I have my start menu back, I have no issues with 8, and anyone building a new system now and putting 7 in it is a dumbbunny.
Someone seems to forget that the big difference between Win7 and Win8 is mostly this: Customers were dissatisfied with Vista and jumped on Win7 at release. Customers where satisfied with Win7 and were reluctant to jump on Win8.
This is mostly the reason why I scratch my head at the comparison. People were fleeing an old platform in one case while in the other case people are content to stay put. Throw in the general decline of PC sales, stats from third parties, and the general climate I wonder how it is "Win8 is selling like Win7 did" because just about everything is different.
Someone seems to forget that the big difference between Win7 and Win8 is mostly this: Customers were dissatisfied with Vista and jumped on Win7 at release. Customers where satisfied with Win7 and were reluctant to jump on Win8.
This is mostly the reason why I scratch my head at the comparison. People were fleeing an old platform in one case while in the other case people are content to stay put. Throw in the general decline of PC sales, stats from third parties, and the general climate I wonder how it is "Win8 is selling like Win7 did" because just about everything is different.
Except that according to the figures the numbers are very similar, proving that this hasn't been the situation at all.
People are way to quick to hate on Win8 for no reason. I understand that people don't feel they need an upgrade but to then say that Windows 8 is bad because they don't need it or see the immediate benefit is just plain ignorant.
Windows 8 is fine and Blue is going to make it even better. If you don't want it, great, but don't spit foul about it when the numbers are proving it's pretty much on the same track as 7 was.
There was talk in the thread about comparing the Steam Harware Survey of April 2010 to the last one in regards to W7 vs W8 comparisons, so I dug up this.
At the 6 month mark, Windows 7 had been adopted by 40 % of Steam users. As mentioned, the number for W8 was 10 %. BUT! Like @extomar said, it's not a fair comparison. The article talks about how they "expect Windows 7 to surpass Windows XP figures later this year" which means that at that time, XP was still used by the majority, or at least close to the majority, of Steam users. Clearly, Vista was both poorly adopted and later swiftly abandoned to the point that barely anyone was using it in april 2010.
So in light of that, it's one hell of feat by Microsoft if they somehow manages to keep up with W7 sales numbers. Everyone seem to love W7, everyone evidently hated Vista.
It's absolutely fine. You may be exaggerating a bit. It's slightly transparent window borders, hardly a monstrosity. The original Windows XP theme was much more abrasive. Of course these are all comments aimed at a reasonable human being and not a crazy person.
It's absolutely fine. You may be exaggerating a bit. It's slightly transparent window borders, hardly a monstrosity. The original Windows XP theme was much more abrasive. Of course these are all comments aimed at a reasonable human being and not a crazy person.
The problem is that's how the majority of people react to Metro (or the modern UI or whatever it's actually called). They're too quick to point it how it's ruined the OS when they couldn't be further from the truth.
I've had enough problems trying to get older games working on Windows 7, and I heard 8 really doesn't help. I'm really REALLY not looking forward to the eventual upgrade I have to make.
As my "totally unscientific scientific measure" I look at the Steam Hardware Survey stats. Win7 at 66% while Windows 8 just hit 10%. At least on the gamer side, Win8 is not even close to selling pretty much like Win7.
I'm sorry, but what the fuck? You do realize Windows 7 came out years and years ago, where as Windows 8 did not? Selling the same pace as Windows 7 did at launch is not the same thing as suddenly having the same number of installs. Also, most gamers are cynical fuckheads who listen to some asshole in the UK telling lies about what is not only an un-offensive but actually generally very good upgrade to an already excellent OS. And the few who actually do care about the start menu are bonkers, because it's the gorram start menu. You don't even need the bloody thing!
Install base and rate of sale are not the same thing.
It's absolutely fine. You may be exaggerating a bit. It's slightly transparent window borders, hardly a monstrosity. The original Windows XP theme was much more abrasive. Of course these are all comments aimed at a reasonable human being and not a crazy person.
The problem is that's how the majority of people react to Metro (or the modern UI or whatever it's actually called). They're too quick to point it how it's ruined the OS when they couldn't be further from the truth.
Eh, when you get used to a decent looking UI and look back on Aero, it is pretty hideous. I was fine with Aero for a while, I even thought it looked pretty sharp for a while there. But man, it's so much better looking and well behaved in W8 than it was in W7. I do sort of miss the cycling through the apps in Aero though. That was neat in a really dumb way.
The thing about Windows is that not matter how poorly it sells it makes up for the lack of sales with most new computers sold. Even if all else fails Microsoft has a decent business to mine.
Why stay away from improvement? If it was strictly a "Metro" UI, completely understandable because it doesn't work without a touch interface but it isn't. Don't touch the Metro side of it and go to the desktop because it's W7 but quicker. For the initial price, Win8 is a nice step up. Some kinks when it comes to gaming and giving it to a person who doesn't know what they changed is painful but learn the small changes and it is overall, a good OS.
I havent upgraded to windows 8 yet, not because i dont like it, or that i'm against it on some sort of weird nerdy stand. It's just that well, theres absolutely no real major reason for me to upgrade, not yet at least.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment