Microsoft Has Sold Over 200 Million Windows 8 Licenses

See here.

So, 12.5million/month versus 20million/month (to be charitable, and disregarding the negative trajectory here). That's roughly, oh, 37.5% less. Hard to explain that one with the tough PC market alone...

 

Well, I may not see eye to eye with you on Windows 8 and 8.1 as far as productivity is concerned. I do have to agree with this statement you made in another thread:

My take is this: Windows 8 isn't bad, but MS made a lot of bad UI decisions on how to do certain things which a lot of people didn't really like. I have used the moden UI on tablets, I have used iOS and Android as well and I do really like the Modern UI and the WP8 UI when it comes to touch devices. I'd say they got it right with Windows 8.1. What they got wrong (which has been said countless time) was to force parts of that UI to desktop only users instead of giving them the choice. I'm cool with using the start screen even when I'm on a desktop workload, but I recognize not everyone is and it is a choice that should have been in the hands of the user.

I personally don't really have a problem with the usability of Windows 8.1 and I really like some of the features it has like better SSD management, tighter skydrive integration. However, MS didn't have to force the modern UI on people. Not only it threw people away because of the radical change in UI, it generated a lot of hate from people who didn't see a reason to use the new UI when the one from Windows 7 was perfectly or better suited to their needs. Combine that with the lack of proper tutorial on how to use the new UI and MS kinda shot themselves in the foot there.

I spend most of my time in windows 8.1, I incurred no loss in productivity overall from using it, I like Windows 8.1. However, that doesn't mean I didn't see the flaws or things that could have been better. All that contributed to generating the negative image that Windows 8 received and as of now that certainly doesn't help sales either. Then there is the matter of Windows 7 which will be more comfortable to use simply because it's what people are used to and it does count for a lot. Besides, in terms of hardware footprint and such, 8 is slightly lighter, but not enough for it to matter much.

Basically, you have a declining PC market, computers and Windows 7 are good enough for most people and since windows 7's UI is more familiar and MS isn't trying to force you into their ecosystem* (MS account, etc.) a lot of people are going to go for windows 7 because of that, especially the business sector.

*You can avoid the MS account completely should you want to, but MS hid the option which again is something they should never have done.

 

Since you are the expert, do the figures include OEM licenses?

 

Yes.

From the article, emphasis mine:

 

Yes, fundamentally I think we're not that far apart; the fact that you are comfortable with the Modern UI and I dislike it really is an unimportant detail. Like you say, to a big degree it's not so much the "what" of Modern UI, but the "how" of trying to force it down everybody's throat. I have said this before: If Microsoft had allowed people to opt for the exact same UI they had before in Windows 7, my guess is that by now they might have more users that switch over to ModernUI once they realize it matches their requirements, and once they are allowed to make this discovery on their own terms. But, of course, such was not Sinofsky's style, which is why he had to go.

The above is of course pointless speculation, really. Things were handled the way they were, and as a result Windows 8 is irreparably damaged, and has become a swearword. Microsoft is forced to make a U-turn, and years have been lost at a time they could least afford it. What a shame.

 

Of course, the real question is how many of those licenses are in use. While I don't expect there'd be a whole lot of debate that most Windows 7 licenses were put in use, with Windows 8 there's always the question of how many were downgraded to 7. And with both Vista and 8 (and probably ME before that), Microsoft always announces license sales, not the number of non-downgraded licenses in use (which they may not have a direct figure for, but could likely approximate via Windows Update statistics).

Although it is noteworthy that even licenses sales are considerably lower versus 7. Even with Vista, the absolute numbers of licenses kept going up versus XP and 2000 simply due to the growing market. At that time, you really had to look at the number of non-downgraded licenses (both of Vista, and XP in 2001 [versus downgraded to 2K]) to see if Vista was really selling more in-use licenses than XP had. Now you can just look at the raw license count and see a decline - so that is significant.

I do agree that the main problems with Windows 8 are forcing the new Metro UI, trying to make it look like Microsoft accounts are required, and the fact that there are some settings that you can only change in Metro and some that you can only change in the desktop, including settings that affect both, and thus even if you only ever want to use Metro/desktop, you still occasionally have to use the other. Well, and the lack of a Start menu build-in significantly hindered adoption by desktop users. But if Microsoft had gone about it in a "Metro for tablets, desktop for non-touch-screen devices" way, I think there would have been a lot less hoopla and unhappiness over Metro and Windows 8 as a whole, and Metro may well have actually gained a positive reputation.

 

The problem with this numbers is the unit sold that doesn't take into account people wiping W8 and reinstalling W7. So this reporting is very selective in the numbers it wants to give out to improve the W8 outlooks to be rosy then it smells to be. You can sell all the W8 machines you want but you can make the users use the O/S you want if they don't want to... aka "You can take a horse to the water fountain but you can't make it drink the water" same goes for users if they want W7 back they will find a way to get it to W7 or they sell the W8 machine and go find a W7 machine instead......

 

Although It probably is not happening too much it also does not account for machines that either get Linux or Hackintosh.

 

I'm pretty confident that we can go from "not happening too much" to "statistically not significant." What percentage of users use a Hackintosh? One in ten thousand? Less? As for Linux, if I wanted a Linux machine, I'd use a solution where I didn't have to buy a Windows license in the process. A factory-Ubuntu machine from Dell or Alienware (for example, the Ubuntu Alienware X51 is $100 less than an identically-configured Windows-equipped Alienware X51), or a no-OS machine from a Clevo reseller (cheaper than a Clevo machine with Windows installed), or a build-it-yourself desktop. I doubt many Linux users are buying machines with Windows licenses.

 

yea, my guess is some of the recent Windows 8 market share growth increases could be considered statistically insignificant as well.

 

Uhh as I recall Microsoft were counting Windows 7 machines being sold as Windows 8 sales (cause of the COA & licensing agreements). Thank god Windows 8 is never going to hit the government anytime soon.

 

The biggest government OS contract of all time was a January 2013 deal for $617 million of Windows 8 licenses.

US Department of Defense signs three-year, $617 million Windows 8 licensing deal

 

I'm guessing third world war is imminent now, once MS releases their colourful Push The Button app and someone in the US gov will accidentally push it.

 

I'm surprised DoD would jump on 8 that fast. And 75% of the work force, there are ALOT of DoD contractors, I wonder if that applies to actual DoD employees. I know almost the rest of the federal govt is still transitioning XP stuff to Windows 7.

 

really? how many XP machines are you responsible for, like percentage-wise compared to W7?


_____
EDIT: allow me to say what really came to mind first: LOL

 

You mean like this?
Buttons - YouTube

 

I disagree. I'm pretty sure most linux laptops shipped with windows. Those from Dell are a complete ripoff because they force their expensive upgrades on there. The only other option is a barebones, but how many people actually buy those??

 

A lot of government agencies have their own custom OS. I suppose that windows 8 is a success given this information. I like the performance of windows 8 and had zero issues transitioning. There really isn't a learning curve at all.

 

Windows 8 outside of tile maze is okay

Cheers
3Fees

 

Look closely at their own reply "really isn't a learning curve" that is a ironic statement in itself if there wasn't such learning curve they would mention you could fire it up and start using it. But no they have to say there isn't a learning curve meaning there is a learning curve. And performance don't get me started I had many posting I mention the difference is so minimal the gain isn't any better.

 

Let us be honest here. Is anyone eager to get an OS the government is signing up for? With all the contract issues they have had and being ripped off or products not performing as anticipated I would be very leery.

 

So when people thought the government WASN'T buying Windows 8, that was something for Win8 opponents to celebrate, but now that I've reminded people that the DoD is buying these en masse, you don't want it simply because the government is buying it?

What did you do during the Win7 era? The government was ordering Win7 licenses, so did that turn you off to Win7?

Also, the idea that you don't want something just because the government is ordering it is going to mean you miss out on a lot of great products. I've got a 1911, and those were standard government issue for 74 years. Doesn't change the fact that they're probably the leading high-end civilian handgun in the US right now. The AR-15, America's most popular civilian rifle, started with a government contract. I could go on and on...

 

What kinda illogical analogy is that? Again grabbing at straws trying to compare Apples to Oranges. Need to do better here. And how many DoD has XP to W7 do you have those stats and link to verify the authenticity of it? It wasn't til just recently Local/State/Federal started going to W7 least to mention Corporation just started migrating to W7 so there is a big hole in your own response.

What's going on here...you want to go political go start your own thread and keep this thread free of your politics.

 

I'm not the one "going political" and I haven't said anything about "my politics." TANWare is the one who said he didn't want Windows 8 because the government is buying Windows 8 and the government allegedly makes bad purchasing decisions. I was just providing counter-examples, from the government buying tons of Win7 licenses (up until Jan 2013) to the government buying 1911s for 74 years straight.

A lot. But the January 2013 contract for Win 8 licenses was the biggest single OS contract the US government has ever entered into, and by the time it's completed, will result in three-quarters of DoD personnel using Windows 8.x. As per Engadget:

US Department of Defense signs three-year, $617 million Windows 8 licensing deal

 

I would submit that an example citing gun purchases by the US government is far, far off-topic here. I will add further that personally I would prefer you keep your guns, and your preoccupation with same, to yourself; they have no business in a computer forum. Nobody here cares that you own a "1911", nor will most people here even know what that is.

 

Then let's talk about other things, like Dodge Chargers and Win7 licenses during the Win7 era. No matter whether you're talking about cars, software, or firearms, "but the government buys it in large volumes" is not evidence that a product is not worth buying by a consumer. That's the context of my comment. Edit: see post 22.

 

I agree with your stance on this.

 

My statement was not for the OS at the time of its release but that two years later the DoD jumping in on it is not a glowing endorsement for the effectiveness of the OS. This is true too in that with Win7 they just got lucky with. A heads up is I was a beta tester with Win 7 and bought into it the first day of release.

So in the end it is not a political statement but more in that I would not buy ANY OS using the DoD purchasing it as a " if they have it then it must be ok" thing. The fact the DoD has, or will have, something gives me no real confidence in the product. Not saying there are not good products purchased and being used I again do not consider it a glowing endorsement.

One thing I always wonder is what Bill would think of the one OS that rhymes with his name, but then I came across the below link.

Gates Spends Entire First Day Back in Office Trying to Install Windows 8.1 : The New Yorker

 

I brought up the DOD purchase simply because another poster said "Thank god Windows 8 is never going to hit the government anytime soon." It did, thirteen months ago. I didn't say anyone had to like it just because the government had adopted it.

 

I have run Windows 8.1 on a few machines and I have to be honest. I really like it. I'd actually like to replace my android tablet with a Windows tablet, preferably a Surface Pro but an RT will be fine as well. The boot times on my i5 PC are incredibly short and application load times are very fast as well. I like that I can now boot to the desktop instead of metro. The only thing I want is my start menu the way it was Windows 7, but I guess I will adjust to it.

 

Was that without any revision to make it with start menu or 3rd party to create a start menu? Most users are of traditional keyboard/mouse from the read. But unfortunately your a minority here as from the looks of market shares W7 still running circles around W8 and 8.1 isn't going to increase it's market shares. And wonder how many of those machines have touchscreen as well those doesn't come cheap. And let's not go back to beating a dead horse more...Speed is so miniminal you not going to notice it at all to benefit anyone. Put a clean W7 on that i5 with proper driver and it will be fast as your W8 i5 with proper driver as well. So that line is so cheap in it's support I still find it hard that that is all the best one can do for W8 is so very sad....for a O/S that was to replace W7. And the Desktop in W7 is nothing line the Desktop in W8 two very different UI doing two very different functions one is a true past iteration of Desktop UI and one is a imitation of trying to be a Desktop but it isn't a functional Desktop as previous Windows versions.

 

That GIF entertains the hell out of me. +1 Indrek.

And yes, the Win8.1 desktop IS, in fact, still a Windows desktop that does desktop-y things.

 

I'm an old curmudgeon when it comes to computing. Sure, I love technology and all, but change for the sake of change is pointless IMO.

I make heavy use of my desktop in Windows 7. I rely on some sidebar gadgets. I stick folders and icons on the desktop. I have my taskbar configured to my personal tastes. I prefer the orb over the flag.

WRT - 8 being faster than 7. It is. For example, I have a Dell Precision M4500: i7, 8GB DDR, 1GB Nvidia Quadro, blah blah blah. I installed a clean copy of Windows 7 and Office 2010 on it. Followed Dell's instructions for driver installation order, etc. Runs great. I then did the same thing for Windows 8. It boots about 9 seconds faster. Outlook open quicker. As does photoshop, and even my browsers. All the hardware was the same. I have two 500GB identical seagate HD's. So I installed 7 on one, tested, then pulled it and installed 8 and repeated the process. From my non-informal benchmarks 8 came out faster or just as fast in all my usage scenarios.

I would have preferred if Microsoft let me use the traditional desktop in the same manner as Windows 7 when I am in Windows 8. But I can't. So I can either about it, adapt, or keep running Windows 7 until they pull support.

That being said i'd love to get my hands on a Windows 8 tablet. I love it on tablets.

 

If all you do is stare at a blank desktop, congrats, you've just accomplished... much of nothing.

 

Would the result be any different if you saw a desktop shot of Windows 7 with three Word and four Excel documents open, versus a desktop shot of Windows 8.1 with the same three Word and four Excel documents open?

 

I didn't see the start menu and the picture is way to small to see any details. At least provide the start menu program files. That screen is too small to see any more detail to see or view the difference.

 

I give up. This argument is waaay too binary.

Windows 8 is AWESOME (it can do no wrong)
Windows 8 SUCKS

All parties are guilty.

 

There is little room for the gray area. It is one of those UI things you either love or hate. For the moment IMHO the majority seem to hate it.

 

Of course - Windows 8 has no Aero Glass.

 

Not between several of the more vocal individuals on this forum, where every argument is completely negated, and usually with a rehash of known issues or features and complete and utter nonsense. There is no way they will even show a smidgen of agreement on anything.

 

i honestly don't believe the side of this "debate" you're referring to has been anything like the other side. it's been hard, impossible for me personally even, to take some of the incoherent grumbling seriously. and the punch line is that W8 has only been used by most of them for less time than would normally be socially acceptable to make any assessment of it at all. i mean seriously, how am i supposed to take that seriously?

if you have legitimate criticisms, and there's plenty of them out there -- fine, point taken. but if you're going to cite the lack of customizable window borders as the downfall of windows and M$ more generally, you're asking to be mocked. (note: that's actually happened on more than one occassion.)

Sent from my Lumia 1520 using Tapatalk

 

That doesn't mean it's "not a desktop" or it's an "imitation of a desktop." That's like saying because your old sedan is silver and your new one is black, that our new one isn't really a sedan and is just an imitation of a sedan and can't be used as a sedan.

Remember StormJumper's post that prompted the comparison of the two desktops:

Do you think Windows doesn't have a real desktop unless it has the Aero aesthetic?

I think Pirx and I expressly agreed on something a few pages back.

 

Not true at all. There's plenty of points of a number of Win8 supporters that I have agreed with, and vice versa.

Yep, and there have been several instances of that.

I think a lot of the differences in the general assessment of Windows 8 as a whole are ultimately a function of how people use their computers: For some people, the differences between Windows 7 and Windows 8 are not important, and in some cases people find their productivity is in fact enhanced. There's other cases where the opposite is the case. That does not mean one side is wrong and the other is right. It is also not the case that one of these user groups is more sophisticated, or smarter, or "computer-savvy" or anything like that. They're just different.

The crucial lesson from this, then, is that all of this polarization could easily have been avoided, if Microsoft had given people a choice. Actually, all they would have had to do is leave the choice that was there until the final preview candidates in their product. This, therefore, is my main criticism: That Microsoft, represented by Sinofsky in this case, decided to cram a UI design choice that is clearly inappropriate for a certain group of users down everybody's throat. Had they not done that, and I note that this would not have cost them a single penny, since all that code was already present, we would not be having these discussions here.

 

From the discussions I've seen on this and the amount of cleaning up we've had to do in the Windows 8 threads as mods. I can definitely say that it tends to bring the worse out of people at times.

That said, for now the discussion seems to be heading in the right direction. No attacks, no insults and so on while debating some on the points whether people like or don't like Windows 8. I'd say Pirx has a point that Windows may have broken the workflow of some while being completely fine with the workflow of others. While things like Areo and desktop borders and minor and in no way ruin the experience, they may make what is already an annoyance to some (the Windows 8 UI) even more of an annoyance. I would say that is one of the reasons we've seen this mentioned often, it's not the most annoying things, but it's easily visible and just adds to how annoyed some of our members feel.

Regarding the desktop, I would say that they are almost identical in Windows 7 & 8. What differs is the experience associated with it. The start menu and start screen are both ways to access your installed programs, etc. and I would personally argue that they are not part of what I'd call "the desktop". However, those two interact with the desktop in completely different way and that may ruin the experience associated with working on the desktop for some. It doesn't for me, but I remember Pirx mentioning things about a few features that were truly lost between the two like jump lists and if you relied heavily on those, then yeah I can see how you'd be annoyed.

Regarding Windows 8 as a brand. I would say that it is suffering from the same thing that Vista suffered back in the days. There is a trend of hating on Windows 8, which is not entirely without reason, but I'd say the phenomenon has taken a life of it's own and that the Windows 8 "brand" is dead. It wouldn't matter if MS released the most awesome OS in years, if they brand it as windows 8.2, there will be a rather large "negative momentum" to overcome, so yeah, the brand is kinda dead partly due to bad choices from MS.

Speaking of OS name, seriously, get the OS name in line with the version number. Go back to using words or get the numbering in line somehow, Windows 7 is version 6.1 of the kernel, 8 is 6.2 and 8.1 is 6.3 IIRC. At some point, it's going to bite them somewhere...

On the whole, I do agree with Pirx that a lot of hate could have been simply avoided by giving people a choice between the start screen and the start menu. Including a decent tutorial on how the new UI works would have saved a lot of pain as well. I know a few average Joes/Jane who after getting a computer with 8.1 and the first few what is this moments, got used to it and don't see it as an impediment to their computer usage. There are others for who 7 is alright and they don't want anything to do with learning a new UI when using a traditional computer. As for the enthusiasts/power users, I would say that our members covered their like or dislike of 8 with their reasons quite extensively, so I won't dwell there.

 

It's a slippery slope. Not one MS is unfamiliar with. MS built up a reputation for defining the concept of "feature creep." Yeah let's just have more checkboxes and ways to manipulate things and we'll have five ways to do that and four ways to do that.. The late 90's were MS just throwing everything into Windows and Office and let's just have this mess of checkboxes and options and different things and oh this looks cool let's put that in too...!! At some point you have to tell the user "CONSISTENT INTERFACE." Macs have locked down the customizations for years, forget Aero, you can't define a window border color at all, and someone on these forums wastes no time reminding everyone how Apple is outselling Windows PCs.

The Start system is a good place to draw the line on overcustomizing. Instead of offering both, and giving developers two different targets, you let the devs know that users will *always* see THIS. Windows 8 is a consistent experience for users, and consistent for the app developers. Design your live tile one way. Design your icon one way. I've also mentioned before that in a shallow way it's about MS making sure that the App Store gets apps, by making sure developers know that they have a captive audience. Once you create a Windows 8 app, and you put it on the store, you are building into an ecosystem where now apparently 200 million people can potentially see it. If you give users the option to "check away" the Start screen, you kill that entire ecosystem. MS is going to try to work around this by having store apps even accessible from the taskbar. We'll see how that pans out.

People don't want checkboxes and options. They want their thing, and not the other thing. They don't care what other people want, as long as they get what they want.

 

I wonder if you understand that the "slippery slope" is a popular fallacy.

Yup. Awesome strategy. Worked great, didn't it? Windows 8 is dead, everybody knows it, and consequently nobody develops apps for it. So, what went wrong? Simple: That "consistent" experience isn't worth spit if a significant portion of your user base doesn't want it.

Uh huh. Which is why Microsoft is exactly doing that. Well, the real reason is that it simply doesn't matter anymore; that ecosystem they dreamed of turned out to be a stillborn child, so there is nothing to be killed. At this point all that's left is trying to save as much of their skin as they can.

Who cares? Of those 150,000 apps that I see quoted, roughly 149,900 are complete and utter crap. Just about nobody buys any of them, and very few people want even any of the free ones.

Says who?

 

Actually the loos of Aero is a deal breaker for me no matter what. Agreed I am a rarity here but the borders distract my eye. Even with windows 7 on some net book to increase performance I removed Aero only to shortly have to put it back in. It is too aggravating without it and TBH it is a sore spot for me and Linux UI's as well but their borders can be reduced somewhat and are usually not as bland.

Another point is I was on the beta for quite some time and even tried the RTM but just like above without Aero it got a quick toss. Agreed I have not given 8.1 any type of chance but the changes made in 8.1 do not get me where I need to be with the desktop, so why even bother? From what I have heard the new update (8.2?) will not get windows where I would need it for the desktop.

Name calling, nah. Everyone has opinions some are just more popular than others. This doesn't mean anyone is wrong only that their opinion usually suits themselves and there is nothing wrong with that. The only problem is when someone tries to change another persons mind and gets flustered when they can't. I had realized a long time ago minds are already set on this. Now it is just updates to the UI so the opinions may be changed. So for this it is not for us it is for M$ to listen! If you want to change the mindsets of consumers out there they need to directly address the issues users have. Just adding fluff to a consumer objectionable desktop UI only further alienates consumers.

I am already hearing form some people, I know locally, that "M$ no longer seems to be making new PC OS's". Of course this is wrong and let them know and they don't have to buy an Apple yet but this is a dangerous thing IMHO. With stupid statements like that I can faintly hear that door opening to competition.

 

Serious question, not a flame: what did you use before Windows Vista?

 

What did you use before high speed internet? Might as well go back to dial up too.

 

High speed internet actually changes functionality--what you can do and how quickly you can do it. Aero is an aesthetic style, not a functionality...and it's an aesthetic styling that hasn't been there in Windows except in Vista and 7. Not remotely comparable.

Unless TANWare was a Vista user, he never used Windows with this aesthetic style until 2009, and my understanding is he's been using computers for decades--yet he says that he can't use an OS without that aesthetic style because he finds window borders without that particular style to be too distracting. That surprised me, so I was asking if there was something like Aero Glass in other OSes (say, Linux) prior to then.

For comparison, in 2011 I got my first car that had a digital speedometer instead of a dial (Civic Si). It's really nice. I like it a lot. I'd much rather have my speed displayed that way in the future. But would I say I wouldn't drive a car without it because it was too distracting to have an old-school dial, to the point where it impaired my ability to drive? No, because I've been driving for fifteen years without it.