Microsoft: More than 200 million Windows 8 licenses sold

Microsoft has announced that it has sold 200 million Windows 8 licenses and the comment came from Tami Reller during the Goldman Sachs Technology & Internet Conference.

This is a massive number by any count as selling 200 million of any type of product or licenses is surely a milestone worth celebrating but it is notable that Microsoft was rather quiet about sales figures as the last update came in May of 2012

Based on the current rate of sales, from launch to today, Windows 8 is selling at a rate of a little over 420,000 licenses per day.  For reference, Microsoft sold roughly 240 million license of Windows 7 in a 12 month time period but it has taken Windows 8 15 months to hit 200 million sales. It’s quite clear that, while 200 million is a massive number, it is at a slower pace than Windows 7.  

Reller also noted that Microsoft is working reducing the footprint of Windows so that it will work well on smaller Windows devices, according to Mary Jo Foley, who spotted these nuggets of info while listening to the call. 

As Microsoft has adopted its rapid release cadence for Windows, we have already seen one big feature pack launch, Windows 8.1, and another smaller update will arrive in April that is called Windows 8.1 update 1.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Phone 8.1 will support Miracast, if Microsoft can finish it in time

Next Story

Microsoft signs up Voxx Electronics as latest Android patent license partner

184 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Largely specified in the subject number is wound. In Ukraine, for example, it is almost impossible to find new PC with pre-installed Windows 7 because of local (or maybe worldwide) flawed policy of Microsoft. So you just have no choice.

EasyPHP has been causing a major headache, even under Admin the browser will often hang trying to access localhost.

Manually having to set up a scheduled event just to get peer block among other apps to load on start up wasn't encouraging.

I'm pro MS, don't own a single apple product, but Microsoft really failed to emulate the success generated from the public preview of Win7 with Win8.

Max

This is Windows failure at its best. For all those hatin' on Windows 8, take that.
Though I still don't like Windows 8, I have managed to get it setup so much like Windows 7, that I don't even think I am in 8, until the Start Screen popup once in a while to make some settings changes.

To me 8 is no loss or no gain from Windows 7. Other than I have an SSD now and Windows 8 boots in literally 7 secs.

Sales does not equal installs. We, as no doubt others, have bought several machines with Win8 Pro over the last year; but, (other than a couple of virtual machines for software testing), we do have a single Win8 machine in the Company.
As an electronics equipment design and manufacturer, Metro brings zero value to us; but would entail retraining production staff, and waste our developers time when the have to keep switching back to the desktop to do their development work.
I am sure Metro is great at home, and maybe for media based organisations; but I just cannot see what it brings to the myriad of businesses and business types, that use Windows on a daily basis.

not really news as new systems are already installed with Windows 8/8.1

no different than saying jack daniels is a popular drink and has more usage.. almost all bars carry JD

No, they are licensed with Windows 8.x, not necessarily installed with Windows 8.x

And it would seem that makes a difference...

Raa said,
No, they are licensed with Windows 8.x, not necessarily installed with Windows 8.x

And it would seem that makes a difference...

But don't OEM's have to purchase or license each copy they install? like before I were to buy a new system? I basically just cover the difference of cost when I buy the system. my point was, if that is the case, example: Dell could have 10,000,000 pc's and laptops with win8 on them in a wharehouse and that is being figured into that total sales number if my guess is correct.

That's true, but what i'm saying is:
I buy a new computer from Dell, I ask for it with Windows 7 Pro. They ship it with a Win 8 license, but it comes with Win 7 preinstalled.

That counts as a Win 8 sale, despite the fact it's actually a Win 7 install.

Agree. However, you will probably get many replies from people stating that a Windows 7 machine is easily available to the general public.

It is a lie because Windows 8 does not have over 200 million customers...... You look at the stats at netmarketshare.com

To find out the truth, you calculate Windows 8.0 users first which is 6.63%. Second, you calculate Windows 8.1 users which is 3.95%. The total usage share of 10.58%. So you calculate 0.1058 x 1.5 billion windows users. The final answer is 158 million Windows 8 customers. In this case Windows 8 is not a successful product and Microsoft lied to their own customers about their own Windows 8 users for no reason. MSFT should be held accountable for their own actions of lieing about windows 8 sales...... Fire Tami reller..... because 42 million portion of 200 million windows 8 users did downgrade their own computers or P.C's to Windows 7 SP1....... I hope someone better than Tami Reller creates better reliable and more appealing Windows Operating System which does not force new user interfaces with choice based options, would you like metro ui with desktop app or you want to have traditional desktop with full Windows 7 style start menu...... Hope you make sure Windows 9 succeeds in the market place......... and you do not lie to your customers about Windows 8 sales before Windows 9 comes out........

justsilly said,
It is a lie because Windows 8 does not have over 200 million customers...... You look at the stats at netmarketshare.com
Because netmarketshare stats are so accurate. Right...

As usual, no breakdown on the numbers. There are not 200 million in use. These licenses are setting on shelves and in warehouses. We have an article it seems every month that PC and laptop sales are down. Also, as noted somewhere above, these numbers pale in comparison to Windows 7.

Hmmmm......I wonder how Paul "FLIP-FLOP" Thurrott feels about this.

That guy is the worst ANALYST-BLOGGER in the history of the Internet. I remember a couple of years ago, he predicted Windows 8's success due to the fact that Stephen Sinofsky the lead runner on the project.

The Joy I have found with Windows 8 is, and I'm reaching out to my counterparts who like the modern UI is that, MS got it right because they developed the OS and we desktop users who like our desktop environment can have what we want as well as all my counterparts who love the modern UI can have what you like and love.

I think I have found my peace in all this

From WPCentral:

Microsoft later reached out to the media and confirmed the statement made by its Executive Vice President of Marketing Tami Reller:

“Windows 8 has surpassed 200 million licenses sold, and we continue to see momentum. This number includes Windows licenses that ship on a new tablet or PC, as well as upgrades to Windows 8. The figure does not include volume license sales to enterprise. Windows is a central part of life for more than 1.5 billion people around the world, and we are looking forward to the future.”

I am a supporter of MS, but only this week I upgraded from 8.1 to Windows 7 on the grounds I just want my apps to work without constantly having to go into the compatibility assistant.

Don't get me started on the UI, Jackob Nielsen probably had a field day ripping 8 to shreds.

MaxBurke said,
I am a supporter of MS, but only this week I upgraded from 8.1 to Windows 7 on the grounds I just want my apps to work without constantly having to go into the compatibility assistant.

Don't get me started on the UI, Jackob Nielsen probably had a field day ripping 8 to shreds.

Such utter nonsense. Even ancient *games* (which are notoriously ill-compatible) such as Silent Hunter II, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Alpha Centauri and the first Splinter Cell run 100% fine and *without* any compatibility wizardry.

Windows 8 is amazingly compatible with older software and is perfect for retro-gaming as well as modern gaming, where DX3D games run up to 10% *faster* on Windows 8 than Windows 7.

MaxBurke said,
I just want my apps to work without constantly having to go into the compatibility assistant.
Which apps and which versions? Come on, name and shame.

Please don`t take this as a criticism of 8/8.1 but i wonder how many licenses for windows 7 have been sold since windows 8 came out.
Sure you could get 8 for an absolute bargain when it came out, allthough if memory serves me right i got several retail copies of 7 HP for £45 on ~Oct 19th (early due to postal strike )
But 8 Pro (upgrade from a defunct Xp box) for £25 was to good a bargain to miss...

Don't understand how people are saying these are just sitting at OEMs.. That would mean that the OEM's are making themselves look worse by increasing there expenses to increase microsofts revenue?! as an accountant it is the stupidest thing I have ever heard..

Love all the tears from the failure brigade.

Must really be hard times for Microsoft to fail so hard with a product selling 200m copies alongside other popular products like Office, Windows 7, their gaming consoles etc...

Bought This HP P6-2133W PC in June 2012, qualified for upgrade to Windows 8 on October 26th, bought it immediately soon as I woke up that morning, been using it ever since, upgraded to 8.1 immediately this October with a Keyboard and Mouse

I have no issues with start screen apps or Desktop

Here is a list of what I normally do with it all day

1. Check email when wake up with Modern email app
2. Play a game possibly, or check out bing news first thing in the morning or the weather sometimes
3. Play Xbox music while working on something in Desktop mode
4. Play a Desktop Game (Secondlife, snap Skype to the left side of the screen, sometimes snap xbox video in the middle to watch a personal video sometimes--though do wish I could snap WIndows Media Center and watch a dvd at times while doing other things

I split my time between Desktop and Modern start area 50/50 most days or 50/30 sometimes depending on what I wanna do on that particular day.

Overall i'm very happy with Start screen in Windows 8.0 and 8.1, and first thing I will be changing when 8.1 update 1 comes out is Boot to Desktop, and booting to start screen as I've always done.

Hoping to someday get more Windows 8.1 licenses and upgrade other house hold PC's

There is a lot more that has to be taken into consideration than just sales figures if you are trying to gauge how well specific features have been received.

How many people (like myself) never use Apps/StartScreen/Touch?
How many people (like myself) have installed a Start Menu replacement (Start8)?
How many people rolled back to Windows 7 or even XP?
How many of those sales equate to actual usage or are sitting on OEM shelves?
Did the user have a choice?
Do they like what they are using?

Also you need to weight the sales figures by the usage statistics from places like NetMarketShare and steam. But even those are skewed, for example I block all statistic collecting sites in my host file/AdBlock+ so I for one never get counted.

Overall, I would predict that XP usage is down, but those transferring are going to both Windows 7 and 8, hence the reason both are going up sloly in the monthly stats. I would not be surprised if Windows 7 didn't grow to over 50% share, while Windows 8 only grows to about 15%-18% share. I very much doubt whether Windows 8 (.0, .1 and u1... combined) will ever go over about 20%-23% market share. It's all too little too late now.

IF Microsoft can get Windows 9 right, then that is where the big changes will occur. If they get it wrong then there will be major trouble ahead for the tech. giant...

Dot Matrix said,
Why are people playing the subtraction game with Windows 8, but never did so for Windows 7?

Might be because Windows 7 PCs were flying off the shelves -- along with Windows 7 upgrades.

Dot Matrix said,
Why are people playing the subtraction game with Windows 8, but never did so for Windows 7?

Because windows 7 didn't fail.

Windows 7 upgrades didn't fly of the shelves, Microsoft told us that a while back, they hardly sell any Windows upgrade pack, not vor XP, not for Vista, not for 7, not for 8.

runningnak3d said,

Might be because Windows 7 PCs were flying off the shelves -- along with Windows 7 upgrades.

Studio384 said,
Windows 7 upgrades didn't fly of the shelves, Microsoft told us that a while back, they hardly sell any Windows upgrade pack, not vor XP, not for Vista, not for 7, not for 8.

That's not what I heard regularly when Microsoft sold the "family upgrade pack" for a bargain price.

Order_66 said,

Because windows 7 didn't fail.

But the same logic applies. Not every Windows 7 license sold was or is used. Yet, everyone here wants to moan over the fact that Windows 8 licenses are selling too. You can't complain about one, and not the other.

Dot Matrix said,
But the same logic applies. Not every Windows 7 license sold was or is used. Yet, everyone here wants to moan over the fact that Windows 8 licenses are selling too. You can't complain about one, and not the other.
Some people are so invested in proving to the world that a product has tanked miserably that they just refuse to believe the opposite is true. While Win8 is not a blockbuster it is by no means a miserable failure either, but people like these will ignore facts and cook up all sorts of excuses to deny the truth. You can't do much about them and there's no point arguing. Just use what you like, recommend it to your family and friends and go about your life.

Romero said,
Some people are so invested in proving to the world that a product has tanked miserably that they just refuse to believe the opposite is true. While Win8 is not a blockbuster it is by no means a miserable failure either, but people like these will ignore facts and cook up all sorts of excuses to deny the truth. You can't do much about them and there's no point arguing. Just use what you like, recommend it to your family and friends and go about your life.

Some people are so invested in proving to the world that a product has been a blow out success that they just refuse to believe the opposite is true. See ... that works both ways.

runningnak3d said,

Some people are so invested in proving to the world that a product has been a blow out success that they just refuse to believe the opposite is true. See ... that works both ways.
No it doesn't, because I clearly said it is in no way a blow out success or a blockbuster. Looks like you can't read. See, it is very much possible to admit that Win8's not a miserable failure without jumping to the other extreme.

Licences sold ≠ PC's sold. In addition, many were probably downgrades (or upgrades depending on your viewpoint) to Windows 7.

simplezz said,
Licences sold ≠ PC's sold. In addition, many were probably downgrades (or upgrades depending on your viewpoint) to Windows 7.
While what you say is nothing but unsubstantiated projection and rampant guesswork, you do deserve praise for using the ≠ instead of the lazy and quite silly != thing that all too many people do. In Windows 8 using the ≠ is ridiculously easy since it is built into the touch keyboard.

Atlantico said,
you do deserve praise for using the ≠ instead of the lazy and quite silly != thing that all too many people do. In Windows 8 using the ≠ is ridiculously easy since it is built into the touch keyboard.
Yeah, and what do people with non-touch keyboards do? Go around wasting time searching the net or CharMap for the symbol to copy, or for the correct Alt code to use? By your definition all programmers who use != must be lazy and silly. What a ridiculous characterization.

Romero said,
Yeah, and what do people with non-touch keyboards do? Go around wasting time searching the net or CharMap for the symbol to copy, or for the correct Alt code to use? By your definition all programmers who use != must be lazy and silly. What a ridiculous characterization.
It was a tongue in cheek comment.

And several of us without touch-screen support use Windows 8.1 (or Server 2012R2, the server version of the same OS) just fine - and without Classic Shell, Start8, or ANY of the shell alternatives. The shell alternatives DO have a purpose - however, even their users admit that it is a niche purpose; they are specifically designed to cater to pointing-device-centric users. Keyboard-centric users by and large care not a whit that the Start menu is gone, or are actually ecstatic that it's gone; most of us don't have touch-screen hardware, either. However, pointing-device-centric users haven't cared because the vast majority of visual changes to Windows - from 9x to 7 - catered to them. Then Windows 8 came along with that big reset to the Windows UI (I'm referring to the UI completely separate from the UX on purpose) and it's "Yikes! Where are the signposts? Where's the Start button?" - this was with the Developer Preview. Thing is, keyboard-centric users kept right on keeping on, and adjusted far quicker.

Nobody - least of all me - said that the adjustment would be easy. I pointed out rather pithily that the adjustment would be massive, and not without casualties - again, that comment came during the Developer Preview. (Go to the Windows Developer Preview thread and look up my exact post on the subject.) The real issue since then is that there are still users that refuse to adjust at all.

PGHammer said,
The shell alternatives DO have a purpose - however, even their users admit that it is a niche purpose; they are specifically designed to cater to pointing-device-centric users.

If it's so niche, why has Microsoft done a 180 and reinstated the start button, menu, and default boot to desktop?

Just goes to show there are 291.66 suckers born every minute (420k / 24 / 60). In reality, as others have already stated, this is NOT the number in use. I pulled up an article from when when they announced that 100 million had been sold, and only 58 million of those were actually in use. Also there are over 1.25 billion (yes with a B) Windows PCs in use worldwide, so 200 million over 18 months is FAIL!

runningnak3d said,
Just goes to show there are 291.66 suckers born every minute (420k / 24 / 60). In reality, as others have already stated, this is NOT the number in use. I pulled up an article from when when they announced that 100 million had been sold, and only 58 million of those were actually in use. Also there are over 1.25 billion (yes with a B) Windows PCs in use worldwide, so 200 million over 18 months is FAIL!

Give it up already, your hot air is stale and stank. If you want to play this game with 8, then you should be playing it with Windows 7 as well, but chances are you never did.

Even if Microsoft did release activation numbers, you'd still come on here clamoring that the number is falsified because a license activation doesn't always equal a sale, blah, blah, blah

Dot Matrix said,

Give it up already, your hot air is stale and stank. If you want to play this game with 8, then you should be playing it with Windows 7 as well, but chances are you never did.

Even if Microsoft did release activation numbers, you'd still come on here clamoring that the number is falsified because a license activation doesn't always equal a sale, blah, blah, blah

First it is Microsoft that needs to give it up and go back to what they do best -- make great DESKTOP operating systems. They have already lost in the tablet / phone arena, just like they lost against the iPod with the Zune (try and deny the Zune was a massive failure). The one thing that MS has going for it in the tablet arena is snap, and the number one Android OEM (Samsung) already has that feature, and Google is adding it natively to Android.

As to your statement about activations not equaling sales -- why would I think that? If a copy of Windows has been activated, then it has been sold. Not going to get nit picky about floor models. So yes, if MS would release the numbers from their activation server, I would be more than happy to agree to them.

Windows Phone is seeing the largest growth of the big three. Windows tablets, laptops and desktops are the same OS, MS isn't going to split that market. Selling 200 million licences in 15 months means that Windows 8 is here to stay. It is a success.

Atlantico said,
Windows Phone is seeing the largest growth of the big three. Windows tablets, laptops and desktops are the same OS, MS isn't going to split that market. Selling 200 million licences in 15 months means that Windows 8 is here to stay. It is a success.

I know a lot of people who bought a new desktop or laptop and they arent too happy with Windows 8. The charms and app switcher annoy them when they are working in desktop mode. They hardly do anything on the startscreen.

Since I am a Windows 8 fan I try to educate them on how to make better use of the system. ANd I can get them to agree that it has some good stuff to it but the overall interface isnt to their liking. Only when I show them how it works on my Surface do they think there is something to it.

In my opinion Microsoft made a huge mistake. They should have made the modern UI adaptable to desktops. Remove all those weird and unintuitive corner gestures and place the charms and appswitcher on the screen. Desktops have large enough displays anyway. I think those kind of changes would make Windows 8 more accessible on desktops.

Right now Windows 8 is selling well because Windows still the only desktop OS that matters. But Microsoft isnt making new fans with a touch-based OS on non-touch devices. I think they should have only released Windows 8 on touch devices and continue to sell WIndows 7 until they made Windows 8 more workable on non-touch. That way they wouldnt have to miss out on the tablet hype and they wouldnt get any bad reviews. In fact the bad desktop experiences is leading to people not buying Windows tablets.

Someone clearly never used Zune. Have you even an idea why Zune "failed"? Because it is never launched across the globe, anyone who ever touched a Zune was positive, reviews about it: all positive. Also, I don't see how you are losing in a market when you're the fastest grower...

runningnak3d said,

First it is Microsoft that needs to give it up and go back to what they do best -- make great DESKTOP operating systems. They have already lost in the tablet / phone arena, just like they lost against the iPod with the Zune (try and deny the Zune was a massive failure). The one thing that MS has going for it in the tablet arena is snap, and the number one Android OEM (Samsung) already has that feature, and Google is adding it natively to Android.

As to your statement about activations not equaling sales -- why would I think that? If a copy of Windows has been activated, then it has been sold. Not going to get nit picky about floor models. So yes, if MS would release the numbers from their activation server, I would be more than happy to agree to them.

Studio384 said,
Someone clearly never used Zune. Have you even an idea why Zune "failed"? Because it is never launched across the globe, anyone who ever touched a Zune was positive, reviews about it: all positive. Also, I don't see how you are losing in a market when you're the fastest grower...

So you're saying that Zune was so positively received that Microsoft chose not to launch it globally and thus it failed? Right...

stevan said,

So you're saying that Zune was so positively received that Microsoft chose not to launch it globally and thus it failed? Right...

No, it was because they couldn't get the rights to the music in Zune Marketplace worldwide. They only launched in countries where they had the rights to sell the music. Making those sorts of deals takes time.

rfirth said,

No, it was because they couldn't get the rights to the music in Zune Marketplace worldwide. They only launched in countries where they had the rights to sell the music. Making those sorts of deals takes time.

Zune had 8% marketshare in the US. I doubt the rest of the world would made difference when iPods had 63% in the US alone. This sums up why Zune lost out:

"To beat it, Microsoft needed to offer something that would make Apple's device look pitifully old-fashioned. The Zune HD didn't do that. Its design marked it as being different from an iPod, but that was pretty much the only difference. There was no reason to buy the Zune unless you wanted to stand apart from the Apple cult. And there was a cost to standing apart from Apple: Because of its popularity, there were millions of apps and accessories for the iPod. As good as it was, the Zune HD couldn't match Apple's sheer market power."

stevan said,

So you're saying that Zune was so positively received that Microsoft chose not to launch it globally and thus it failed? Right...

Not as hard to believe as you think. There are LOADS of great things that Microsoft does not launch outside of the US, or launches 2 or 3 years later. It's their biggest problem, in my mind..

Ronnet said,

I know a lot of people who bought a new desktop or laptop and they arent too happy with Windows 8. The charms and app switcher annoy them when they are working in desktop mode. They hardly do anything on the startscreen.

I know a bunch of people who griped about those very things. Then they got used to it and learned how to boot straight into Desktop and to use the Start Screen as an improved Start Menu.

I can't imagine what "bad" desktop experience you are referring to, since Windows 8 has the same desktop as Windows 7, just not as glossy.

The fact is that people will gripe and then they will adapt. I see more and more people defending the Charms, the Start Screen and Windows 8 in general now than only 6 months ago. People are adapting and accepting.

Do you really feel like having those huge charms on the side of an otherwise slim UI is intuitive? That its so easy to accidently access them? Or that some apps are in the appswitcher and others in the taskbar. This can be really confusing for desktop users. Lastly when someone does want to use the charms and such on a non-touch device its simplt unintuitive. You have to do a mouse gesture while there is plenty of room onscreen for visible buttons.

And what kind of people are you talking about? Because people who are not computer savy at all seem unable to grasp this multi-layered UI.

I really feel that the charms are as intuitive as double-clicking, copy-pasting and browsing the internet. Debatable intuitive, relatively discoverable.

You're shown once how it works and that's it. Since that's pretty much the bar for any computer from an iPad to a Windows 8 desktop PC, I just do not understand the gripes about the charms.

Also, the charms are pretty slim unless one is using some super low definition screen. On a 2560x1440 the charms are pretty slim.

People adapt. People learned that in order to shut down their PC, they had to go to the Start Menu. People managed to use DOS apps in Windows 95. People Managed to use Windows 95.

Lastly, Windows has never been "intuative", I don't see anything particularly intuitive with *any* version of Windows. However, once you learn to use it, it's pretty simple.

Same for the charms, for anything in ModernUI. It may or may not be super intuitive or discoverable, but see it once, try it a couple of times and boom. You know it and it doesn't need to be intuitive or discoverable.

Charms are very convenient, I think. But if you do not like them, just switch them off.

TrickyDickie said,
"accidentally" swipe out from the right of the screen? Lol

I'm talking about non-touch.... Maybe that is why you cant relate. On touch they are great indeed. They also have a great size for touch input. But when you;re on the desktop with a mouse then the charms appear as a huge bar. Accessing goes via the corners. Its not intuitive at all. More importantly you're left wondering why you have to do such gestures in the first place. PLenty of room on a desktop PC's screen. Just make them smaller and add them to the taskbar. Basically one charm is already there: the start button.

I honestly believe Microsoft will scare away people from Windows if they keep a UI obviously designed for touch on non-touch devices. Im not asking them to remove the start screen, not at al. I'm asking them to make it adaotable and thus more intuitive for non-touch devices as well.

Ok. I was going to argue, but I'll have to concede to this one (damn it lol)

I sometimes still get them charms bar fly out when I don't want it. Not so often anymore, though -- it just takes a little getting used to.

Also, I don't mind the thing anyway - quick access to settings etc.

As for the Modern UI, I really do lime it. I loved Windows 7, but I wouldn't go back now. Finally, I tended to shy away from 'Metro' apps (as they were called back then), but now I use them more than the desktop apps, except for File Explorer, Malwarebytes and a couple of others with no Modern equivalent.

I never claimed the charms were not useful. They indeed provide quick access to useful features. But having them and the appswitcher as corner gestures just isnt a good solution for desktop. Wouldn't they fit better on the taskbar? Right next to the start button just adda search, share, devices and settings button. Followed by an icon representing the modern apswitcher. And after that the desktops apps that are already on the appbar. When in a modern app the desktop apps could be replaced by the app's appbar.

I too think there is real potential in having the modern UI as the main work environment on desktop PCs as well as touch devices. Indeed the modern file explorer needs some serious updates. But for me its credibilty starts with having it adapt to desktop use. If Microsoft cant do that then its hopeless. You and me can easily get used to the weird gestures. But not everyone can. More importantly a lot of people simply dont want too. They have yet to grasp the benefit of the new UI and they only see it as a needlessly complex and unintuitive mess on top of what they want to use.

Please - that is sounding more and more like a broken record. "Designed for touch" how? Unless you know that the hardware itself supports touch, where are the telltales?

Yes - that is a VERY serious question.

Over and over - and over - I keep hearing about the Windows 8 UI being "designed for touch". I see exactly zero evidence of that, and I work in the UI every day. I have exactly NO touch-screen support on my mid-tower, either. Unless you actually HAVE touch-screen hardware, and use it as such, there is exactly zero difference between touch-screen hardware, and the same hardware lacking touch-screen support. Not from a UI standpoint, or any other standpoint, either. Sounds like what you REALLY miss is the Start menu - a shining beacon to pointing-device-centricity.

PGHammer said,
Please - that is sounding more and more like a broken record. "Designed for touch" how? Unless you know that the hardware itself supports touch, where are the telltales?

Yes - that is a VERY serious question.

Over and over - and over - I keep hearing about the Windows 8 UI being "designed for touch". I see exactly zero evidence of that, and I work in the UI every day. I have exactly NO touch-screen support on my mid-tower, either. Unless you actually HAVE touch-screen hardware, and use it as such, there is exactly zero difference between touch-screen hardware, and the same hardware lacking touch-screen support. Not from a UI standpoint, or any other standpoint, either. Sounds like what you REALLY miss is the Start menu - a shining beacon to pointing-device-centricity.

Not at all... I'm a massive supported of Windows 8 and the direction Microsoft is taking. I urge you to (re)read my posts. The issue isnt with the startscreen itself. The issue is with the UI elements such as the appswitcher, charms and the appbar.

Particularly the appswitcher and the charms are clearly not designed for non-touch. They are massive compared to UI elements designed for mouse such as the taskbar on the desktop. Just compare the size of the start button on the desktop with the start charm. And why are the charms accessible via left corners and swipe gesture? Does that make sense to you?

When you're on a desktop PC then there is plenty of room on your screen to show the charms, appswitcher and appbar all the time. As well as the time and date. All those thigns can easily be put into a slim taskbar that you can access by the click of a button.

The solution is simple: the moment you move the mouse on a Windows 8 PC a bar could appear on the bottom with EVERY button on it from the charms to the switcher. No need to swipe up and down in the corners. And the moment you touch the screen the bar disappears and you can use the touch UI that has clearly been designed for touch. Windows 8 would have an UI that has the best solution for clicking and touching all in one.

I do like the App Switcher as it is, too - Very easy to switch between apps (Use it a lot to switch from Last Pass to various browser windows lol)

I said I still get problems with the Charms Bar sometimes - But this is rare now, and I really can't remember what I used to do that made this happen. But not so much any more, like I said. Now I find all of these things very handy. These bars are part of the Modern UI.

As for the poster above, I can't help but agree that the "Designed for touch" thing is getting a little old too - I have a touch screen monitor, but very rarely use it any more. I am very comfortable using the mouse and keyboard with Windows 8 (.1, update 1 now... lol). And remember, the Start Screen is the Start Menu replacement. It's just tapping (OK, clicking!) a tile instead of an item on a menu. So much easier. And Microsoft used a lot of telemetric(?!) data to come to this decision.

We're starting to see more and more mini tablets and lower cost Windows 8.1 x86 devices that are attracting buyers now, the OMEs should've had these out quicker but regardless, better late than never.

With the changes in update 1 looking good for mouse users and WP and Windows coming closer together, this year will be interesting to say the least.

... and 70% of them have downgraded to Windows 7 or are bought for the next 3 years in bulk for OEM's for pcs not even made yet

sinetheo said,
http://gs.statcounter.com/#des...os-ww-monthly-201301-201401

Unless these mysterious 200 million users are not internet enabled I have to see that number is a lie. 8% is nowhere NEAR 200 million of 1,000,000,000 internet users! Hell XP has double the marketshare of active internet users.

Let's do some math. Please point out if there are any mistakes. I'm don't like math actually.

Based on statcounter and net applications data, the combined windows 8 and 8.1 market share is about 11%

Wikipedia says at the end of 2013, out of 7.1 billion of world population, 39% were using the internet, which stands at about 2.769 billion.

11% of that is about 304,600,000 million. Considering that there are a lot of pirated windows 8 and 8.1 installation out there too, and even if say 50,000,000 of the buyers downgraded or got rid of their copies in some way, don't you think the 200,000,000 number seems about right?

The decrease is obviously due to the desktop market shrinking. I'm not one to believe it signifies the death of the desktop PC. Before people simply lacked choice (laptop or desktop). Now they have more choice but that doesnt mean everyone will switch to tablets. I suspect a large portion of consumers will stick to PC. But Microsoft needs to do two things a.s.a.p:

- Demonstrate the value of owning a Windows tablet over an Android tablet or iPad to make sure lower sales in the desktop space are compensated by tablet sales.
- Make Windows more adaptable to desktops to Ensure those customers sticking to desktops have a reason to stay.

So after all Windows 8 is a mild success. After using Windows 8 since it's release, I am not surprised, it is damn fine OS.

We sell a lot of Lenovo PC's. The business machines and ThinkPads are counted as Windows 8 licenses even though they come with Windows 7 SP1 Professional preinstalled. They also come with Windows 8 Pro recovery DVD's. I prefer 8.1, but wonder, worldsire, how many Windows 8 Pro licenses were actually downgrades to Windows 7 Pro. Lenovo's new Windows 7 Pro machines have Windows 8 stickers on them.

It should be noted that licenses sold does not equal systems in use - ever. I'm certain many of those licenses are sitting at OEMs, awaiting the need when current licenses have been exhausted in building machines. Still others are technically in use, but in fact, sitting on the shelves of retailers, awaiting their first use.

Microsoft always puts up better numbers than are actually in use, first because there is no accurate way of knowing how many licenses are in use, and also because it bolsters the confidence of partners.

the oracle said,
Microsoft always puts up better numbers than are actually in use,
Not just Microsoft. Any company will publish the best or most usable numbers and/or twist not so good numbers in a way they appear better.

paulheu said,
Not just Microsoft. Any company will publish the best or most usable numbers and/or twist not so good numbers in a way they appear better.

The real numbers at netmarketshare or gs.statcounter.com show it at 5% usage for the real world.

sinetheo said,

The real numbers at netmarketshare or gs.statcounter.com show it at 5% usage for the real world.

Those are browser statistics not OS usage statistics.

On the left hand side click OS?

Unless these Windows 8 boxen never ever go on the internet they will be counted. Usage doesn't match the numbers. It is like pre-ordering 100 trucks at a company over a 10 year life span in advance.

The numbers do not exist if you do not have a single truck. Now if I did not pay for them yet it is fraud to even report it as such!

the oracle said,
It should be noted that licenses sold does not equal systems in use - ever. I'm certain many of those licenses are sitting at OEMs, awaiting the need when current licenses have been exhausted in building machines. Still others are technically in use, but in fact, sitting on the shelves of retailers, awaiting their first use.

Microsoft always puts up better numbers than are actually in use, first because there is no accurate way of knowing how many licenses are in use, and also because it bolsters the confidence of partners.

You might be surprised to learn that most OEM licensing in our modern world doesn't sit on shelves, as the machines are built the license is allocated and reported.

No 'inventory' of the licenses needed.

the oracle said,
It should be noted that licenses sold does not equal systems in use - ever. I'm certain many of those licenses are sitting at OEMs, awaiting the need when current licenses have been exhausted in building machines. Still others are technically in use, but in fact, sitting on the shelves of retailers, awaiting their first use.

Microsoft always puts up better numbers than are actually in use, first because there is no accurate way of knowing how many licenses are in use, and also because it bolsters the confidence of partners.

You know Microsoft use telemetry data, right? They now what is running where.

I am a windows 8 fan but I speak honestly, for users who primarily use mouse windows 8 is a pain. this will change in the future but many of those bought windows 8 and faced the frustration. thanks to start 8 and other start menu programs the problem is partially fixed. Enterprise environment also has this problem of new UAC setting that block admin access for being admin by default. that's a pain. both problems could be resolved with better planning and research. I use windows 8 and I am happy but I see why many people has problems. Hopefully new Management could fix the problem and inconsistencies in the most important software of MS

trojan_market said,
I am a windows 8 fan but I speak honestly, for users who primarily use mouse windows 8 is a pain.

Nope, you speak dishonestly. Windows 8 works great with a mouse as the primary input device.

trojan_market said,
I am a windows 8 fan but I speak honestly, for users who primarily use mouse windows 8 is a pain.

How so? I have no trouble with it whatsoever on my desktop.. it's smoother and generally more responsive than WIN7 was on the same hardware while at least the OS UX did not change at all when I upgraded my hardware.

I use windows 8 as my main OS now and it is absolutely not a pain to use, unless you try to do all your work with metro apps, which in that case will incur some pain.

There are some changes that you'd need to make but you'll be doing them just once.
Change picture, music and video defaults; pin your most accessed folders and desktop programs to the start screen, use the start button's context menu (which is actually more productive) and you are good to go. Boot/close-to-desktop will help too.

Atlantico said,

Nope, you speak dishonestly. Windows 8 works great with a mouse as the primary input device.

no it is not, start screen not designed for mouse, designed for touch. Hunting the corner of screen for hot spots is a pain in the ass. as I said I am using it fine because I use keyboard shortcut primarily. There are hundred of youtube videos shows people's frustration. the problem with Microsoft is having people like you sticking their head in the sand and their thumbs in their asses. just go to youtube and search for windows 8 frustration. If people cannot use a system don't blame people, blame system designer. Windows 7 was just fine for mouse. not everybody is tech savvy. people need interface clue. documentation and tutorial was (and still is) horrible on windows 8. the only thing is that it says move your mouse to the corner (except you can't at that point of installation) they could have had some videos showing the common usage (similar thing they did for windows XP)

eddman said,
I use windows 8 as my main OS now and it is absolutely not a pain to use, unless you try to do all your work with metro apps, which in that case will incur some pain.

There are some changes that you'd need to make but you'll be doing them just once.
Change picture, music and video defaults; pin your most accessed folders and desktop programs to the start screen, use the start button's context menu (which is actually more productive) and you are good to go. Boot/close-to-desktop will help too.


that is exactly my point. if they wanted people use Modern apps they failed to do it. all these numbers is just illusions. because people using windows 8 they way they used to use windows 7. as I mentioned administrative setting is also a pain and in my opinion design flaw. basically you have to choose between being admin on your computer or use Modern apps.

Don't speak for everyone. I prefer using Windows 8 with a mouse and think anyone who complains is not very smart.

The OS works beautifully with a mouse. People just don't like any change or having to learn anything new.

eddman said,
I use windows 8 as my main OS now and it is absolutely not a pain to use, unless you try to do all your work with metro apps, which in that case will incur some pain.

See that's dishonest, there's no difference in using the desktop in Windows 8. It's better if anything, but not different. This is not an opinion, it can easily be demonstrated. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

trojan_market said,

that is exactly my point. if they wanted people use Modern apps they failed to do it. all these numbers is just illusions. because people using windows 8 they way they used to use windows 7. as I mentioned administrative setting is also a pain and in my opinion design flaw. basically you have to choose between being admin on your computer or use Modern apps.

Who cares what MS is trying to do? The desktop works great. in Windows 8. ModernUI works great with a mouse in Windows 8. The admin setting complaint is really weird. Of course one uses the computer in an admin setting derp. Welcome to the 21st century. It's the same on Mac OS X.

Now if one doesn't use an admin account for some weird reason (assuming one is using one's own computer) then just don't install in the Program Files folder unless you need to. Actually that's just good advice for anyone, admin or not.

It's like people don't know how to use a modern OS.

Exactly! I'm a HEAVY keyboard and mouse user and I move in Windows 8.1 perfectly fine. I did it on Windows 7, I do it on Windows 8.x.

ZipZapRap said,

I think he's using a real mouse, judging from the difficulty he's experiencing.

His mouse DPI must be lower than 800... I cant figure out how moving your mouse to a hot spot corner is harder? Its the same as moving your mouse to "show desktop" button on the taskbar, or moving your mouse to the close button at the top of your window.

ZipZapRap said,

I think he's using a real mouse, judging from the difficulty he's experiencing.


what is it with you people? I am bringing a true design flaw to attention and you make fun of it? try use multi monitor configuration and see how hard it is to hunt for the edge with your "high tech laser mouse". I am done with you guys. either you don't know what you talking about or pretend to be windows fan.

trojan_market said,

what is it with you people? I am bringing a true design flaw to attention and you make fun of it? try use multi monitor configuration and see how hard it is to hunt for the edge with your "high tech laser mouse". I am done with you guys. either you don't know what you talking about or pretend to be windows fan.

Then why didn't you mention that earlier? We can't read minds.
Yes, that's a real flaw and you're absolutely right. I only have one display, so I never experienced it. I think MS should put some sort of a short wall at the edges so that the cursor would get stuck.

trojan_market said,

what is it with you people? I am bringing a true design flaw to attention and you make fun of it? try use multi monitor configuration and see how hard it is to hunt for the edge with your "high tech laser mouse". I am done with you guys. either you don't know what you talking about or pretend to be windows fan.

Because they don't find it difficult and neither do I. There's no precision required at all. You can just fling the pointer to the corner and it pops up.

trojan_market said,

what is it with you people? I am bringing a true design flaw to attention and you make fun of it? try use multi monitor configuration and see how hard it is to hunt for the edge with your "high tech laser mouse". I am done with you guys. either you don't know what you talking about or pretend to be windows fan.

Dual monitors makes things easier. The charms bar opens on each monitor, so there is no need to go all the way to the right monitor to get the charms bar. You can run start screen on one monitor, while desktop on the other. Your taskbar can extend across to your second monitor.

trojan_market said,

what is it with you people? I am bringing a true design flaw to attention and you make fun of it? try use multi monitor configuration and see how hard it is to hunt for the edge with your "high tech laser mouse". I am done with you guys. either you don't know what you talking about or pretend to be windows fan.

Hmm... so there are actually barriers in the corners and are 6 pixels in length. I didn't know that, I only have one display. This article explains it:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/arc...-for-multiple-monitors.aspx

Go to the part "Improved mouse targeting on the shared edge".

Perhaps you mean that those areas should be larger, maybe?

ZipZapRap said,

I think he's using a real mouse, judging from the difficulty he's experiencing.

This made me laugh out loud. Cheers, you made my day!

ZipZapRap said,

I think he's using a real mouse, judging from the difficulty he's experiencing.

Couldn't agree more (laughed so much it hurt)

trojan_market said,
I am a windows 8 fan but I speak honestly, for users who primarily use mouse windows 8 is a pain. this will change in the future but many of those bought windows 8 and faced the frustration. thanks to start 8 and other start menu programs the problem is partially fixed. Enterprise environment also has this problem of new UAC setting that block admin access for being admin by default. that's a pain. both problems could be resolved with better planning and research. I use windows 8 and I am happy but I see why many people has problems. Hopefully new Management could fix the problem and inconsistencies in the most important software of MS

The Start Screen is just as easy to use as the start menu was.
I can't believe that people still haven't figured it out.

By comparison Win 7 sold 240 million licenses in 1 year.

Vista sold 180 million in 19 months.

So Win 8/8.1 has sold 200 million in 18 months. Which puts it between Vista and 7 in sales.

It's pretty much impossible to ever have the success of Win 7 ever again though, 7 got a big boost from the failure of Vista (which many skipped or wanted rid of). And now because a tablet is enough for many people, they don't want or need a desktop/laptop. So no matter how good MS makes Windows 9 it will never have the same level of sales if it's ONLY aimed at desktops/laptops. To get the levels of success that 7 had, MS need to get a large chunk of the tablet space, otherwise it's impossible. Obviously Win 8/8.1 is trying to address this.

However, desktops and laptops clearly wont disappear because they're way more useful tools for work or raw performance than any tablet, but the market for them will continue to decline for some time, and no amazing perfect version of Windows will stop this.

Yeah it is surprisingly good numbers considering Windows 7 was boosted from poor Vista sales and people (finally) moving from XP. Well, I say finally, seems there's still many people stuck there...

As for the future, well I'd hope by Windows 9 they will have merged it property with Windows Phone and will have a proper mobile version that will span phones & tablets with the same OS and apps. There will also be a lot more decent apps by then, I'd imagine almost on par with Android/iOS in most respects. Intel 7 AMD will keep pushing out new power efficient chips, Nokia will be fully integrated and Surface onto the 3rd generation. So they will have one OS across all devices (give or take), lots of apps, great hardware and that should massively boost Windows 9 sales since it'll be phones, phablets, tablets, laptops, desktops and everything else. So actually, if the world is ready to move on from their current love affair with Google (and let's hope they see sense and do) then perhaps, just perhaps, Windows and Microsoft can have a comeback and Windows 9 will actually be their best selling OS ever.*


* - which is what Windows 8 should have been, but they mucked around, messed about and were late to the party.

NoClipMode said,
And now because a tablet is enough for many people, they don't want or need a desktop/laptop.

Not just that. There is no need to buy a new PC for most people anymore. My desktop PC is in its 8th year and can run 8 perfectly fine. I was a bit surprised that all the components had a windows 8 driver available.

NoClipMode said,
By comparison Win 7 sold 240 million licenses in 1 year.

Vista sold 180 million in 19 months.

So Win 8/8.1 has sold 200 million in 18 months. Which puts it between Vista and 7 in sales.

It's pretty much impossible to ever have the success of Win 7 ever again though, 7 got a big boost from the failure of Vista (which many skipped or wanted rid of). And now because a tablet is enough for many people, they don't want or need a desktop/laptop. So no matter how good MS makes Windows 9 it will never have the same level of sales if it's ONLY aimed at desktops/laptops. To get the levels of success that 7 had, MS need to get a large chunk of the tablet space, otherwise it's impossible. Obviously Win 8/8.1 is trying to address this.

However, desktops and laptops clearly wont disappear because they're way more useful tools for work or raw performance than any tablet, but the market for them will continue to decline for some time, and no amazing perfect version of Windows will stop this.


I think you summed it up better then anyone else could have done. Even if windows 7 was still actively sold, it would have probably been at the same amount as 8.

But then people would have complained that Microsoft should have made a tablet version of windows to compete with android/iOS...

eddman said,

Not just that. There is no need to buy a new PC for most people anymore. My desktop PC is in its 8th year and can run 8 perfectly fine. I was a bit surprised that all the components had a windows 8 driver available.

^ This. My desktop is in it's 7th year, and still running everything - even the latest games - just fine.

NoClipMode said,
By comparison Win 7 sold 240 million licenses in 1 year.

Vista sold 180 million in 19 months.

So Win 8/8.1 has sold 200 million in 18 months. Which puts it between Vista and 7 in sales.

It's pretty much impossible to ever have the success of Win 7 ever again though, 7 got a big boost from the failure of Vista (which many skipped or wanted rid of). And now because a tablet is enough for many people, they don't want or need a desktop/laptop. So no matter how good MS makes Windows 9 it will never have the same level of sales if it's ONLY aimed at desktops/laptops. To get the levels of success that 7 had, MS need to get a large chunk of the tablet space, otherwise it's impossible. Obviously Win 8/8.1 is trying to address this.

However, desktops and laptops clearly wont disappear because they're way more useful tools for work or raw performance than any tablet, but the market for them will continue to decline for some time, and no amazing perfect version of Windows will stop this.

It's realy dumb to call Windows 8 a failure if the only OS that sold better then 8, was Windows 7... So yeah...

Studio384 said,
It's realy dumb to call Windows 8 a failure if the only OS that sold better then 8, was Windows 7... So yeah...

You forgot XP.

stevan said,

You forgot XP.

XP came out at a time when it was a 1 desktop per household, maybe laptop as well it they were lucky.
Vista/7 when pretty much everyone gets a laptop and the XP desktop is in the corner gathering dust, so much higher sales.
Windows 8 has now come out at a time where everyone wants a tablet and now that Vista/Laptop gets switched on every so often when they need something their tablet can't do.

People aren't upgrading to Windows 8 on mass, just as windows 7 didn't get upgraded on mass. They are only buying windows 8 machines to replace broken/old and slow Vista/7 machines or just first time buyers. And then people wonder why Windows 8 sales aren't as high *facepalm*

NoClipMode said,
By comparison Win 7 sold 240 million licenses in 1 year.

Vista sold 180 million in 19 months.

So Win 8/8.1 has sold 200 million in 18 months. Which puts it between Vista and 7 in sales.

It's pretty much impossible to ever have the success of Win 7 ever again though, 7 got a big boost from the failure of Vista (which many skipped or wanted rid of). And now because a tablet is enough for many people, they don't want or need a desktop/laptop. So no matter how good MS makes Windows 9 it will never have the same level of sales if it's ONLY aimed at desktops/laptops. To get the levels of success that 7 had, MS need to get a large chunk of the tablet space, otherwise it's impossible. Obviously Win 8/8.1 is trying to address this.

However, desktops and laptops clearly wont disappear because they're way more useful tools for work or raw performance than any tablet, but the market for them will continue to decline for some time, and no amazing perfect version of Windows will stop this.

Are you aware MS sold over 480M Vista licenses?

Dot Matrix said,

^ This. My desktop is in it's 7th year, and still running everything - even the latest games - just fine.

Maybe a 7 year old CPU can play the latest games but a 7 year old GPU definitely won't. In 2007 the best graphics card available was the Nvidia 8800GTX which cost $500. You will struggle to playable frame rates even on low settings with that card now.

stevan said,

No they didn't.


Again whatever is that you smoke, please share it with the rest of us.

First off here is a quote from Wikipedia to start:

"At the release of Windows 7 (October 2009), Windows Vista (with approximately 400 million Internet users) was the second most widely used operating system on the Internet with an approximately 19% market share, the most widely used being Windows XP with an approximately 63% market share.["

They sold 20M within 30 days, beating XP 30 day sales by 3M. On average, Vista went on to sell more than 10M copies per month. Even after Windows 7 debuted, Vista was still selling and was the second most popular operating system in use when Windows 7 appeared.

Microsoft doesn't count downgrades. They count licenses sold to OEM's and boxed copies sold to retailers.

AAGAIN...when Windows 7 made its debute, over 400M people were using Windows Vista. Even tho Windows 7 sales were high, they went higher after SP1 which is typical for Windows as Enterprises start to adopt a new OS after SP1 which usually will have worked out most of the bugs.

Oh and just to add some fuel to my fire. Windows Vista sold more copies than all combined sales of Mac OS and OS X so far.

Would you like to try again?

Oh and here is another fact. Windows 7 is nothing more than Windows Vista with Legacy Support added back and some UI changes. After all, Windows Vista is based on Windows NT Kernal 6.0 and Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. Which makes Windows 7 nothing more than an incremental upgrade/fix to Vista. Much like what XP was to Windows 2000 Pro, as was all the versions of Windows 9x also based on one kernel.

So with those facts Windows Vista has sold to this date over 730M copies and is still selling. Whether you call it Windows 7 or Vista, it doesn't matter. Those are facts you can't change.

Windows 8 is NT 6.2 - Vista is the foundation at 6.0
Windows 8.1 is NT 6.3 - Vista is the foundation at 6.0

So now we can add 200M more sales that means nearly 1B people have own Windows NT 6.x so far. Which means at this point, no other version of Windows has ever sold over or even close to 1B licenses. EVER!

Edited by Hi_XPecTa_Chens, Feb 17 2014, 9:40pm :

Hi_XPecTa_Chens said,

Again whatever is that you smoke, please share it with the rest of us.

First off here is a quote from Wikipedia to start:

"At the release of Windows 7 (October 2009), Windows Vista (with approximately 400 million Internet users) was the second most widely used operating system on the Internet with an approximately 19% market share, the most widely used being Windows XP with an approximately 63% market share.["

They sold 20M within 30 days, beating XP 30 day sales by 3M. On average, Vista went on to sell more than 10M copies per month. Even after Windows 7 debuted, Vista was still selling and was the second most popular operating system in use when Windows 7 appeared.

Microsoft doesn't count downgrades. They count licenses sold to OEM's and boxed copies sold to retailers.

AAGAIN...when Windows 7 made its debute, over 400M people were using Windows Vista. Even tho Windows 7 sales were high, they went higher after SP1 which is typical for Windows as Enterprises start to adopt a new OS after SP1 which usually will have worked out most of the bugs.

Oh and just to add some fuel to my fire. Windows Vista sold more copies than all combined sales of Mac OS and OS X so far.

Would you like to try again?

Oh and here is another fact. Windows 7 is nothing more than Windows Vista with Legacy Support added back and some UI changes. After all, Windows Vista is based on Windows NT Kernal 6.0 and Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. Which makes Windows 7 nothing more than an incremental upgrade/fix to Vista. Much like what XP was to Windows 2000 Pro, as was all the versions of Windows 9x also based on one kernel.

So with those facts Windows Vista has sold to this date over 730M copies and is still selling. Whether you call it Windows 7 or Vista, it doesn't matter. Those are facts you can't change.

Windows 8 is NT 6.2 - Vista is the foundation at 6.0
Windows 8.1 is NT 6.3 - Vista is the foundation at 6.0

So now we can add 200M more sales that means nearly 1B people have own Windows NT 6.x so far. Which means at this point, no other version of Windows has ever sold over or even close to 1B licenses. EVER!

Windows 7 isn't Vista.

stevan said,

Windows 7 isn't Vista.

Prove it. Here let me put it another way. No matter what you name the OS, the Ketrnal number is the controlling factor. PERIOD. This is true of ALL operating system.

Let's try this logic on Mac OS X (Ten). Every upgrade to Mac OS X still carries the X as in 10. There have been 11 versions of this OS that have been based on the exact same 10.x kernel. That is why every version of OS X is not a new OS, it is simply an incremental upgrade.

All Versions of Windows since Windows 2000 have been based on Windows NT. Windows NT 4, is what Windows 95/98/98SE/ME was borne from. Then the kernel was updated to 5.x which spawned Windows 2000 Server/Pro and XP. Windows Vista uses a newer kernel 6.0 which have spawned into Vista, Windows 7and Windows 8.

Windows 7 is in FACT Windows Vista with UI changes and enhanced fixes that were issues in Vista. In fact, before Service Pack 1, you could see many of Windows Vista UI elements still left in Windows 7 including Windows Aero. The file copy windows were identical, the control panel was identical and more. Even the start button was the same and more.

Saying Windows Vista isn't Windows 7 is like saying Windows ME is not Windows 95.
Look at Android 4.x which we know it has first Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean and Kit Kat. They are all using the same foundation. Giving a new name to the update is just to inform you they made significant changes. But you should expect that any application written for the base kernel, should work in the updated ones.

Are you even aware, that Window Vista was the first desktop OS, that actually came after the Server version was made? Usually the client is made first and then Microosft adds the Server Registry features to create the Server version. MS made Windows Server 2003 first and it had issues, So they redid it as Windows Server 2003 R2, which is were Vista was made from. The original Windows Server 2003 was based off the Windows NT 5.x. That is why it took 5 years for Vista to appear after XP. However, if you look a Windows Longhorn, you an see that Longhorn is what we are now calling Window 7. Microsoft dropped Longhorn in favor of trying to remoe Legacy Support from Windows in Vista. They failed because the OEM's refused to support it with updated drivers. Even tho Vista was capable of using Windows XP's drivers. All the OEM's had to do was update the installers, but they refused.

Windows 7 also can use Vista drivers and software, just s Windows 8 can use Windows 7 drivers and software. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME OPERATING SYSTEM.

When MS forst made Windows XP, they stripped out support for Windows 9x applications which is why is didn't work. With Windows Xp SP1a and Windows 2000 SP4, they attempted to put Windows 9x compatibility back into Windows NT 5.1. It didn't work perfectly until they fixed it with SP2. Ever since they have left this feature in Windows NT 6 which allows for many older Windows 9x apps to be installed in todays Windows.

Apple choice a different course. They have dropped legacy support for All Mac OS PPC applications. They brought it back in one version of Mac OS X, but I forgot which one. But even then I had a list of the 1000 application that actually worked with it, while on Windows over 200.000 Windows 9x apps work perfect with Compatibility Mode in XP/Vista/7.

Windows 7 is Vista just as Windows Mojave was also just Vista. They simply changed the name to get away from the negative media issues. When people actually didn't think they were using Vista, they liked it. In fact after Windows Mojave, Vista sales increased. Why? Because there was nothing ever wrong with Vista. Vista had the same issues Windows 8 faces. People hate change. Every time Microsoft makes a radical change to Windows you all bash it. They did the same with XP. After they fixed it, you all didn't want to even get rid of it. Now the same is happening with Windows 7.

Whether you like a new version of Windows or not, all the money still goes to MS. 200M licenses is still a lot for an OS that no one likes per se. But no ne is making anyone buy it. But that doesn't change what it is.

Who says you can't put lipstick on a pig? Microsoft did it with Windows9x, 2000/XP, did it again with Vista/7 and will do it again with Windows 8/9.

Edited by Hi_XPecTa_Chens, Feb 18 2014, 5:15pm :

Hi_XPecTa_Chens said,
Prove it. Here let me put it another way. No matter what you name the OS, the Ketrnal number is the controlling factor. PERIOD. This is true of ALL operating system.

Let's try this logic on Mac OS X (Ten). Every upgrade to Mac OS X still carries the X as in 10. There have been 11 versions of this OS that have been based on the exact same 10.x kernel. That is why every version of OS X is not a new OS, it is simply an incremental upgrade.

All Versions of Windows since Windows 2000 have been based on Windows NT. Windows NT 4, is what Windows 95/98/98SE/ME was borne from. Then the kernel was updated to 5.x which spawned Windows 2000 Server/Pro and XP. Windows Vista uses a newer kernel 6.0 which have spawned into Vista, Windows 7and Windows 8.

Windows 7 is in FACT Windows Vista with UI changes and enhanced fixes that were issues in Vista. In fact, before Service Pack 1, you could see many of Windows Vista UI elements still left in Windows 7 including Windows Aero. The file copy windows were identical, the control panel was identical and more. Even the start button was the same and more.

Saying Windows Vista isn't Windows 7 is like saying Windows ME is not Windows 95.
Look at Android 4.x which we know it has first Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean and Kit Kat. They are all using the same foundation. Giving a new name to the update is just to inform you they made significant changes. But you should expect that any application written for the base kernel, should work in the updated ones.

Are you even aware, that Window Vista was the first desktop OS, that actually came after the Server version was made? Usually the client is made first and then Microosft adds the Server Registry features to create the Server version. MS made Windows Server 2003 first and it had issues, So they redid it as Windows Server 2003 R2, which is were Vista was made from. The original Windows Server 2003 was based off the Windows NT 5.x. That is why it took 5 years for Vista to appear after XP. However, if you look a Windows Longhorn, you an see that Longhorn is what we are now calling Window 7. Microsoft dropped Longhorn in favor of trying to remoe Legacy Support from Windows in Vista. They failed because the OEM's refused to support it with updated drivers. Even tho Vista was capable of using Windows XP's drivers. All the OEM's had to do was update the installers, but they refused.

Windows 7 also can use Vista drivers and software, just s Windows 8 can use Windows 7 drivers and software. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME OPERATING SYSTEM.

When MS forst made Windows XP, they stripped out support for Windows 9x applications which is why is didn't work. With Windows Xp SP1a and Windows 2000 SP4, they attempted to put Windows 9x compatibility back into Windows NT 5.1. It didn't work perfectly until they fixed it with SP2. Ever since they have left this feature in Windows NT 6 which allows for many older Windows 9x apps to be installed in todays Windows.

Apple choice a different course. They have dropped legacy support for All Mac OS PPC applications. They brought it back in one version of Mac OS X, but I forgot which one. But even then I had a list of the 1000 application that actually worked with it, while on Windows over 200.000 Windows 9x apps work perfect with Compatibility Mode in XP/Vista/7.

Windows 7 is Vista just as Windows Mojave was also just Vista. They simply changed the name to get away from the negative media issues. When people actually didn't think they were using Vista, they liked it. In fact after Windows Mojave, Vista sales increased. Why? Because there was nothing ever wrong with Vista. Vista had the same issues Windows 8 faces. People hate change. Every time Microsoft makes a radical change to Windows you all bash it. They did the same with XP. After they fixed it, you all didn't want to even get rid of it. Now the same is happening with Windows 7.

Whether you like a new version of Windows or not, all the money still goes to MS. 200M licenses is still a lot for an OS that no one likes per se. But no ne is making anyone buy it. But that doesn't change what it is.

Who says you can't put lipstick on a pig? Microsoft did it with Windows9x, 2000/XP, did it again with Vista/7 and will do it again with Windows 8/9.

All the kernel (NT) changes are major. Windows 7 isn't Windows Vista.

stevan said,

All the kernel (NT) changes are major. Windows 7 isn't Windows Vista.


Very little changed Kernel wise from Vista to 7. Nothing close to XP-Vista or 7-8.

stevan said,

All the kernel (NT) changes are major. Windows 7 isn't Windows Vista.

False. Windows NT 3.x to 4.x is a major change. Windows Nt 4.xto 5.x is a major change. Moving from Nt 5.x to 6.x is a major change. Moving from Windows 2000 which was NT5 to Windows XO which was 5.1 is not a full rewrite. It is an incremental update.

You need to learn version numbers and what they mean.
Windows NT 6.0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_6.0
Windows NT 6.0 is an internal version number of Windows NT. It is used by these releases:
Windows Vista
Windows Server 2008
Windows Small Business Server 2008

Windows NT 6.1 can refer to these versions of Microsoft Windows operating systems:
Windows 7
Windows Server 2008 R2
Windows Small Business Server 2011

Windows NT 6.2 can refer to these versions of Microsoft Windows operating systems:
Windows 8, a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system, produced by Microsoft for use on personal computers, including home and business desktops, laptops, tablets, and home theater PCs
Windows Server 2012, codenamed "Windows Server 8", is the sixth release of Windows Server

Windows NT 6.3 can refer to these versions of Microsoft Windows operating systems:
Windows 8.1, an upgrade to Windows 8.
Windows Server 2012 R2, an upgrade to Windows Server 2012 which provides new features such as integrated Office 365 and IPAM support.

this has been a fact of Windows for years. You cant change it because you don't like the truth.

In every OS the first number is the whole number of the kernel. If that whole number goes to 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 or whatever, those are incremental updates to the original kernel, not a new major rewrite.

Come on man! Please open your mind and stop being so closed minded. You are simply wrong.

Hi_XPecTa_Chens said,

False. Windows NT 3.x to 4.x is a major change. Windows Nt 4.xto 5.x is a major change. Moving from Nt 5.x to 6.x is a major change. Moving from Windows 2000 which was NT5 to Windows XO which was 5.1 is not a full rewrite. It is an incremental update.

You need to learn version numbers and what they mean.
Windows NT 6.0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_6.0
Windows NT 6.0 is an internal version number of Windows NT. It is used by these releases:
Windows Vista
Windows Server 2008
Windows Small Business Server 2008

Windows NT 6.1 can refer to these versions of Microsoft Windows operating systems:
Windows 7
Windows Server 2008 R2
Windows Small Business Server 2011

Windows NT 6.2 can refer to these versions of Microsoft Windows operating systems:
Windows 8, a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system, produced by Microsoft for use on personal computers, including home and business desktops, laptops, tablets, and home theater PCs
Windows Server 2012, codenamed "Windows Server 8", is the sixth release of Windows Server

Windows NT 6.3 can refer to these versions of Microsoft Windows operating systems:
Windows 8.1, an upgrade to Windows 8.
Windows Server 2012 R2, an upgrade to Windows Server 2012 which provides new features such as integrated Office 365 and IPAM support.

this has been a fact of Windows for years. You cant change it because you don't like the truth.

In every OS the first number is the whole number of the kernel. If that whole number goes to 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 or whatever, those are incremental updates to the original kernel, not a new major rewrite.

Come on man! Please open your mind and stop being so closed minded. You are simply wrong.

You didn't even know what a Fortune 500 company was and I'm supposed to believe ANYTHING you say?

"One of the things we had decided to do with Windows 7 was, we got a message loud and clear, especially with the trend of netbooks, on top of [other] things," Russinovich said, "People wanted small, efficient, fast, battery-efficient operating systems. So we made a tremendous effort from the start to the finish, from the design to the implementation, measurements, tuning, all the way through the process to make sure that Windows 7 was fast and nimble, even though it provided more features. So this is actually the first release of Windows that has a smaller memory footprint than a previous release of Windows, and that's despite adding all [these] features."

Windows 7 isn't Vista.

stevan said,

You didn't even know what a Fortune 500 company was and I'm supposed to believe ANYTHING you say?


He also skips the fact that Windows 7 originally had NT7.0, named 6.1 for backward compatibility reasons.
Same for Windows 8, NT 8.0, named NT6.2 for backwards compatibility.
Windows 8.1, NT 8.1, named NT6.3 for backwards compatibility.

Microsoft changed the version numbering of NT with Windows 7. NT version number is now represented in Windows name.

THE_OBSERVER said,
a break on this would be nice. How many Retail sales would my biggest interest.

Talk to the OEMs for that.
Microsoft has no responsibility to provide units sold by their hardware partners.

If they keep ordering at such a pace, the retail numbers must be close, otherwise we'd see a slowdown in OEM purchasing.

THE_OBSERVER said,
a break on this would be nice. How many Retail sales would my biggest interest.

The majority of Windows sales has always been OEM.

Hey OP can you correct the "licences per day" number? 42k is one tenth of what it's selling. Math doesn't add up.

That's really good considering that its predecessor was so good and is still perfectly adequate in the eyes of most users! Really happy for Microsoft.

Naww man... no one uses windows 8. anyone who did install it or bought a new 8 machine later 'upgraded' to 7. Its true I tell ya. /s

You're wrong. I've been on Windows 8 since day 1 and the majority of the people I know are running it. Some of my friends even upgraded from Windows 7 after seeing and messing around with Windows 8.1 on my PC. From what I've seen/noticed, Windows 8/8.1 seems to appeal more to the younger generation (people my age, I'm 20) but the older folks hate it. I love Windows 8.1 and it'll only get better with the new update coming later this year. I don't really care much for Windows 7 anymore.

Oh, it means sarcasm, just Googled it. I didn't know that at all, I never really paid any attention to that part of the comment. I learnt something new today.

Not nearly as many as those for Windows 8, as Windows 7 had an upgrade path from XP or Vista, and people actually wanted to upgrade - whereas Windows 8.x has no in-place upgrade from those earlier OSs possible, and most people have heard, or seen, all the bad things about 8.x, so a general damper is on things. ALSO, whether you like or hate Windows 8.x, it must be admitted that it does not come at a natural upgrade node [usually 5-6 years] and is just now hitting that time frame. It will probably not get a huge amount of new users who are leaving XP behind, both due to its lack of appeal, and its lack of drivers for older hardware, which can still be perfectly serviceable with Windows 7.

The very best thing Microsoft can do with the next major iteration of Windows is split the OS into two, standard Windows for the desktop and laptop, and Windows RT for those things which are smaller and less capable.

So I should have Metro taken away from me when I find the apps very useful for notifications just because I have a desktop? Nah man that won't fly. The new update they brought out adapts to your input method.

Dunkleybwoy said,
I also wonder how many licenses of Windows 7 came pre-installed on new machines when it came out...

Fair enough, but people weren't asking for machines with Vista on them when 7 was out.

Dunkleybwoy said,
I also wonder how many licenses of Windows 7 came pre-installed on new machines when it came out...
...And on XP when it came out.

the oracle said,
Not nearly as many as those for Windows 8, as Windows 7 had an upgrade path from XP or Vista, and people actually wanted to upgrade - whereas Windows 8.x has no in-place upgrade from those earlier OSs possible, and most people have heard, or seen, all the bad things about 8.x, so a general damper is on things. ALSO, whether you like or hate Windows 8.x, it must be admitted that it does not come at a natural upgrade node [usually 5-6 years] and is just now hitting that time frame. It will probably not get a huge amount of new users who are leaving XP behind, both due to its lack of appeal, and its lack of drivers for older hardware, which can still be perfectly serviceable with Windows 7.

The very best thing Microsoft can do with the next major iteration of Windows is split the OS into two, standard Windows for the desktop and laptop, and Windows RT for those things which are smaller and less capable.

I don't know about you, but upgrading from Vista to 8 is as easy, if not easier, then from XP to 7. Windows 8 has an upgrade path from Vista and 7, the last 2 releases, and that's very common for Windows.

dead.cell said,

Fair enough, but people weren't asking for machines with Vista on them when 7 was out.

The media didn't decide to start a meaningless hate campaign against 7.

JJ_ said,
I wonder how many of those 200 million licenses came pre-installed on new machines

Right, and many IT shops probably have a standard Windows 7 image they then slap on it, and the pre-installed Windows 8 never even gets a first boot.

I also wonder about new OEM PCs that have a Windows 7 sticker on it... how is Microsoft counting that?

MikeChipshop said,
The media didn't decide to start a meaningless hate campaign against 7.

Probably because you can't hate what you're okay with using. Seriously, are you saying hate campaigns just spring out of the ground or what...?

I'm okay with Windows 8.1 for what it's worth, but I'd be a liar if I sat here and told you I don't get phone calls, text messages, emails, and people coming face to face telling me about how upset they are with Windows 8 or if I have any machines with Windows 7 to sell them.

I personally wish I worked for Stardock as some sort of sales rep. At least then maybe I could make a little extra side cash for all the instances I recommend Start8 for those too stubborn to adapt.

Hardly. It is very successful for touch-centric devices, as it was designed for them. For mouse/keyboard-centric devices...adoption is something quite different. Different OSs for different uses.

I can agree about adoption being different for certain users. I just joined it to my domain environment at work and everything is working very well. SCCM isn't, however I don't let any other admins access my system.

TsarNikky said,
For mouse/keyboard-centric devices...adoption is something quite different.

The majority of Win 8 devices are PC's with keyboard and mouse/touchpad, which it works perfectly fine with.

I just pin the shortcuts I need to my taskbar and set the Windows 8.1 to boot to the desktop instead. I pin any news and events I want to view from the startscreen and switch to it to view when I need to, such as the weather, movies, Olympic scores... etc.

Dunkleybwoy said,
YAY!!! Apparently it flopped. Watch the hate...

Well now that you mention it windows 8.x really is a massive failure with consumers at the retail level, 200 million sales to OEM's simply does not equal sales to consumers if those machines are just sitting on the shelves collecting dust.

In 2013 windows 8.x only showed minuscule marketshare growth for 3 months with windows 7 overtaking 8.x the remaining months.

Companies like Dell, Lenovo etc began offering pc's with windows 7 preinstalled "by popular demand".

Microsoft has a long history of dishonesty and deception, they don't give their sources to show where the sales are coming from, and in the case of windows 8.x it's for good reason.

Sinofsky - fired
Ballmer - fired

Windows 8.x is the biggest OS failure in the entire history of microsoft.

Order_66 said,

Well now that you mention it windows 8.x really is a massive failure with consumers at the retail level, 200 million sales to OEM's simply does not equal sales to consumers if those machines are just sitting on the shelves collecting dust.

In 2013 windows 8.x only showed minuscule marketshare growth for 3 months with windows 7 overtaking 8.x the remaining months.

Companies like Dell, Lenovo etc began offering pc's with windows 7 preinstalled "by popular demand".

Microsoft has a long history of dishonesty and deception, they don't give their sources to show where the sales are coming from, and in the case of windows 8.x it's for good reason.

Sinofsky - fired
Ballmer - fired

Windows 8.x is the biggest OS failure in the entire history of microsoft.

Ballmer retired. He's also still on the board. Are you trying to rewrite history with all that hot air?

Dot Matrix said,

Ballmer retired. Are you trying to rewrite history with that hot air?

If you are gullible enough to believe everything microsoft tells you then sure, ok, he "retired" <laf>

Dot Matrix said,

Ballmer retired. He's also still on the board. Are you trying to rewrite history with all that hot air?

In fact, we don't know if Sinofsky was fired either, according to official reports, he stept up.

Order_66 said,

If you are gullible enough to believe everything microsoft tells you then sure, ok, he "retired" <laf>

He retired, no questioning that. He has been CEO for a very long time, this is unique you know! In 30 years, Microsoft only had 2 CEOs, there aren't that many companies, especialy in the tech industrie, that can say the same (not to say "non").

Studio384 said,
He retired, no questioning that. He has been CEO for a very long time, this is unique you know! In 30 years, Microsoft only had 2 CEOs, there aren't that many companies, especialy in the tech industrie, that can say the same (not to say "non").

The difference is that he retired without any sort of replacement. Which basically means he was fired. If he really retired from a company he says he loves so much, he would have waited until there was a replacement.

stevan said,

The difference is that he retired without any sort of replacement. Which basically means he was fired. If he really retired from a company he says he loves so much, he would have waited until there was a replacement.

He announced his retirement, they began searching for a replacement, they announced his replacement, he officially handed the job over and retired. As far as I can tell, he did wait until there was a replacement before he retired.

Announcing his intentions to retire and actually retiring are two completely different things.

Trent Devers said,

He announced his retirement, they began searching for a replacement, they announced his replacement, he officially handed the job over and retired. As far as I can tell, he did wait until there was a replacement before he retired.

Announcing his intentions to retire and actually retiring are two completely different things.

“While the decision to go seems to have technically been Ballmer's, interviews with dozens of people inside and outside the company, including many close to the situation, indicate that he had not aimed to leave this soon and especially after the recent restructuring of the company that he had intensely planned,”

stevan said,

The difference is that he retired without any sort of replacement. Which basically means he was fired. If he really retired from a company he says he loves so much, he would have waited until there was a replacement.

And if he was fired, it would have been an immediate change, with an interim CEO appointed. I doubt he would have remained on the board if he was, either.

He retired on his own accord, and a search for a new one was conducted. He retired because he felt he was not up to the task of moving Microsoft forward fast enough.

Dot Matrix said,

And if he was fired, it would have been an immediate change, with an interim CEO appointed. I doubt he would have remained on the board if he was, either.

He retired on his own accord, and a search for a new one was conducted. He retired because he felt he was not up to the task of moving Microsoft forward fast enough.

The big difference DOT, is that you can't fire and escort someone out of the building, when the guys owns so much MS stock.

All signs point to him being fired, which no one said is a bad thing. He was the one that started the major restructuring at MS, something even he admitted was going to take a while, and then he "surprisingly" retired.

Sorry, many aren't buying it....

stevan said,

The big difference DOT, is that you can't fire and escort someone out of the building, when the guys owns so much MS stock.

All signs point to him being fired, which no one said is a bad thing. He was the one that started the major restructuring at MS, something even he admitted was going to take a while, and then he "surprisingly" retired.

Sorry, many aren't buying it....

What? If he was fired, it would have been an immediate release. CEOs just don't hang around for 8 months after they're let go by the board.

Also not to mention that *if* (and that's a big if) he was fired, then the board should have said so. You cannot fire a CEO, and then tell the world he retired, and mislead your shareholders.

Edited by Dot Matrix, Feb 13 2014, 10:26pm :

Dot Matrix said,

What? If he was fired, it would have been an immediate release. CEOs just don't hang around for 8 months after their let go by the board.

Not when they own billions of dollars worth of stock.

stevan said,

Not when they own billions of dollars worth of stock.

You cannot fire someone, and then tell the world he retired. That's misleading your shareholders, and creates a scandal.

Face it, Ballmer retired peacefully. He wouldn't have hung around this long while the search for a new CEO was conducted. That just doesn't happen.

Dot Matrix said,

You cannot fire someone, and then tell the world he retired. That's misleading your shareholders, and creates a scandal.

Face it, Ballmer retired peacefully. He wouldn't have hung around this long while the search for a new CEO was conducted. That just doesn't happen.

“While the decision to go seems to have technically been Ballmer's, interviews with dozens of people inside and outside the company, including many close to the situation, indicate that he had not aimed to leave this soon and especially after the recent restructuring of the company that he had intensely planned,”

Where in your quote does it support that he was fired? Like I said above, he retired on his own accord after he felt he could keep up with the pace Microsoft needed to move at. The sands shifted, and Ballmer just didn't feel up to the task, so he retired sooner than he planned. You can do that, you know.

Dot Matrix said,
Where in your quote does it support that he was fired? Like I said above, he retired on his own accord after he felt he could keep up with the pace Microsoft needed to move at. The sands shifted, and Ballmer just didn't feel up to the task, so he retired sooner than he planned. You can do that, you know.

It doesn't directly say that he was fired, but it throws suspicion that he quit on his own accord. The move was certainly surprising, himself having announced major restructuring at Microsoft that he would lead. The quote shows that people familiar with the matters know he didn't leave on his own decision. And to be fired would have greatly impacted Microsoft's reputation. They were in some bad press over Xbox One, Original Surface and the board probably wanted someone new to come and head the company. So they may or may not have asked him to step down, in due time of course, until the new successor is found.

I don't see anything unbelievable with that. The guy wasn't the worst CEO on the planet but also wasn't the best. If he was too slow to react to market changes around him, then it may be a good thing that he's gone and someone else comes in. Look what happened in the end, Bill Gates is more involved with the company.

And this is nothing but the positives so far. Microsoft without Google or Apple isn't the same, just like the other two aren't the same without a third player. These three are the big punchers in the tech industry now and it needs to stay like this for the sake of innovation and advancement of technology.

stevan said,

It doesn't directly say that he was fired, but it throws suspicion that he quit on his own accord. The move was certainly surprising, himself having announced major restructuring at Microsoft that he would lead. The quote shows that people familiar with the matters know he didn't leave on his own decision. And to be fired would have greatly impacted Microsoft's reputation. They were in some bad press over Xbox One, Original Surface and the board probably wanted someone new to come and head the company. So they may or may not have asked him to step down, in due time of course, until the new successor is found.

I don't see anything unbelievable with that. The guy wasn't the worst CEO on the planet but also wasn't the best. If he was too slow to react to market changes around him, then it may be a good thing that he's gone and someone else comes in. Look what happened in the end, Bill Gates is more involved with the company.

And this is nothing but the positives so far. Microsoft without Google or Apple isn't the same, just like the other two aren't the same without a third player. These three are the big punchers in the tech industry now and it needs to stay like this for the sake of innovation and advancement of technology.

The quote says nothing of the kind. "Too soon" != suspicions that he was fired.

Also, being asked to step down, is wholly different from being fired.

dvb2000 said,
typical Microsoft hype & FUD. How many in active daily use?

I believe somewhere between 5% and 8%. Numbers I saw on this page, so plz don't quote me on that.

dvb2000 said,
typical Microsoft hype & FUD. How many in active daily use?

Right. Considering license sales is how Microsoft generates income... A license moved, is still a license moved. No FUD about it.

Dunkleybwoy said,
YAY!!! Apparently it flopped. Watch the hate...

Don't worry, they won't let evidence get in the way of their world view..
*reads comments above*

see?

dvb2000 said,
typical Microsoft hype & FUD. How many in active daily use?

Who cares? Sales are sales. Why does no one ask this about Android and Apple products?

Eric said,

Who cares? Sales are sales. Why does no one ask this about Android and Apple products?

Please don't tell me that you honestly believe that because people do ask this about Android and Apple products.

Almost every positive post about Apple or Android has people in it trying to spin it as a negative. When ever there is a post about Android's activation numbers, there are a few people in there asking how many of those activations are actually the same phone being reactivated.

When it comes to Apple, when ever there is a post about Apple's fiscal quarter, there's always someone in there asking for a breakdown between the different iPhone models to try to prove that one model isn't as successful as the other. You also have people accusing Apple of limiting the amount of new iPhones it has on sale over its release weekend just to make it appear more popular than they think it actually is.

The people who really should be asking how many of those licenses are in active use are developers seeing how big an install base is before they target it.

Just as Microsoft deliberately and dishonestly lies to the public to try and save face, Ballmer, Synofsky and a few others have been fired primarily due to the colossal failure of windows 8.x.

Microsoft lies by omission about windows 8.x.

For example:

"the fastest selling operating system of all time"
"windows 8 sells 100 million licenses in 6 months"

This is all diversionary marketing strategy that deliberately omits any chance of viewing any real evidence needed to support any alleged success of windows 8.x in the marketplace.

Things such as marketshare samples, retail sales figures etc etc are deliberately omitted.
This was omitted with windows 7 as well, however, unlike windows 8, 7 was a success, and as a result the microsoft marketing was rarely questioned.

They are trying to turn a colossal failure into a success by praising it as a success but no matter how they twist, turn and lie windows 8 is still the single biggest OS failure in the entire history of microsoft, there simply is no way around that stark, simple truth.

Dot Matrix said,

And if he was fired, it would have been an immediate change, with an interim CEO appointed. I doubt he would have remained on the board if he was, either.

He retired on his own accord, and a search for a new one was conducted. He retired because he felt he was not up to the task of moving Microsoft forward fast enough.

I can tell you never worked in a corporate setting. I've seen and known of many executives that have "retired" while in reality, they were forced out. A good friend of mine just "retired" into a consulting position with the company several months ago.

He was told to retire and take the consulting package which included a nice "retirement" package, plus a six month consultant package. If he declined, he would forfeit the consultant deal and get a less lucrative "retirement" package.

So he gave in his 3 week notice, helped train the new guy, and told everyone he was moving onto greener pastures.

BTW, this isn't to say that he really didn't retire. Just a retort that no one can really know what happened behind closed doors unless you know someone behind those doors.

Order_66 said,

If you are gullible enough to believe everything microsoft tells you then sure, ok, he "retired" <laf>

Can you even smell the BS coming from you gob hole? Of course he retired sheeesh.

To all those invoking the "he's retiring card", just listen to Bloomberg, read the Wall Street Journal or maybe even Business Insider.

Retirements aren't announced in such short notice to avoid upsetting stock prices. The planned PR spin "I am retiring in 1 year and there's never gonna be a good time to do so" was indeed contradicted by the haphazard selection of CEO just month after that speed by Ballmer.

Don't kid yourselves. He was fired. And Bill Gates was asked by the board to step up, while a Silicon Valley outsider, John Thompson took the REAL helm.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...oft-chairman-in-revamp.html

Please stop reading only nerdish stuff and listen to advice from experts who know this kind of BS used by companies to hide problems.

As one would say: "Been there, seen that, done that, came back with souvenirs"

Order_66 said,

Well now that you mention it windows 8.x really is a massive failure with consumers at the retail level, 200 million sales to OEM's simply does not equal sales to consumers if those machines are just sitting on the shelves collecting dust.

In 2013 windows 8.x only showed minuscule marketshare growth for 3 months with windows 7 overtaking 8.x the remaining months.

Companies like Dell, Lenovo etc began offering pc's with windows 7 preinstalled "by popular demand".

Microsoft has a long history of dishonesty and deception, they don't give their sources to show where the sales are coming from, and in the case of windows 8.x it's for good reason.

Sinofsky - fired
Ballmer - fired

Windows 8.x is the biggest OS failure in the entire history of microsoft.

Windows 8 is not the biggest Windows failure in MS history. Ballmer didn't get fired.

You and your Windows hate is so lame with no substance. 200M licenses? You think they are all sitting on the shelves? REALLY! Do you think all those were just sol to OEM?

Do you even realize out of 100%, 65% of Windows is sold to Enterprise ad OEMs combined, this is not just one group of people. 35% are sold on retail. That would be OEM systems and boxed copies.

Windows ME was MS bigget OS failure. One year on self and less than 100M copies. But if 100M copies is a failure, than what is success.

Let me ask you. Have you ever sold 1M of anything? How bout 100M of anything?

Until you do, you should be quiet and let the adults talk. 200M is certainly not a failure.

stevan said,

Microsoft ha never "fired" a CEO. In fact, CEO's don't get fired. Also, Ballmer being one of the largest stockholders and having been with the company longer than anyone with exception of Gates, he couldn't even be fired.

All the board cannot fire a CEO. They can request him to resign, but he ever has too. After all the board wanted Ballmer gone. Likely Gates stepped in and said NO.

Gates now could have talked to Ballmer and just say, now is the time to make the move. But still could have left it to his choice.

Windows 8 is not why they wanted Ballmer gone. It was a series of missteps that include Zune, Windows Vista and Windows Phone/8.

Just to compare, Steve Jobs was FIRED from Apple. - http://news.cnet.com/8301-1357...beans-on-firing-steve-jobs/

On Jobs return be got his revenge too by firing Scully.

Hi_XPecTa_Chens said,
Windows 8 is not the biggest Windows failure in MS history. Ballmer didn't get fired.

You and your Windows hate is so lame with no substance. 200M licenses? You think they are all sitting on the shelves? REALLY! Do you think all those were just sol to OEM?

Do you even realize out of 100%, 65% of Windows is sold to Enterprise ad OEMs combined, this is not just one group of people. 35% are sold on retail. That would be OEM systems and boxed copies.

Windows ME was MS bigget OS failure. One year on self and less than 100M copies. But if 100M copies is a failure, than what is success.

Let me ask you. Have you ever sold 1M of anything? How bout 100M of anything?

Until you do, you should be quiet and let the adults talk. 200M is certainly not a failure.

Retirements aren't announced in such short notice to avoid upsetting stock prices. The planned PR spin "I am retiring in 1 year and there's never gonna be a good time to do so" was indeed contradicted by the haphazard selection of CEO just month after that speed by Ballmer.

40% of Americas CEOs get fired. Go get educated.