Windows 7 has sold more than 350 million licenses

It is hard to believe but Windows 7 has been on the market for 18 months. During that time, the platform has experienced tremendous growth and adoption by users all over the world; including business environments.

Announced today on the Windowsteamblog is that Windows 7 has sold more than 350 million licenses to date. Also mentioned is that analyst firms like IDC have estimated that 90% of business are either drafting or have already started implementing Windows 7 and in most cases this is to replace Windows XP. And by deploying Windows 7, companies are saving, on average, $140 per PC per year. This generates a return on investment of 131% over a 12 month period.

The growth of Windows 7 shows the the platform has a solid foundation for success and will most likely eclipse Windows XP in the near future as the platform of choice for many end users. While the success of Windows 7 is easy to attribute to it's intuitive features and solid performance. It is hard to ignore that Windows Vista set the groundwork for the success that Windows 7 is now experiencing.

But not to become complacent in the marketplace, Microsoft is hard at work on Windows 8. The next generation platform is expected to be released in late 2012 with the latest rumor suggesting retail availability in early 2013. 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft targets Google Docs

Next Story

Google capturing same location data as Apple's iOS devices

76 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I remember Steve Jobs let a weird face and voice guy come out and bashes Windows Vista at WWDC. It was pathetic and desperate. But, it is understandable because at that time they just have the Mac and iPhone is no where to be seen. Up-today, I can see they finally give up the Mac vs PC, and OS vs Windows War and focus on their biggest success the iPhone.

satus said,
I remember Steve Jobs let a weird face and voice guy come out and bashes Windows Vista at WWDC. It was pathetic and desperate. But, it is understandable because at that time they just have the Mac and iPhone is no where to be seen. Up-today, I can see they finally give up the Mac vs PC, and OS vs Windows War and focus on their biggest success the iPhone.

iPhone and iPad are the only two products that's saving their company right now just like Windows and Office has been for Microsoft.

PassionForGod said,

iPhone and iPad are the only two products that's saving their company right now just like Windows and Office has been for Microsoft.

Just watch WP7, though! Already at 2% market share, and with the Nokia deal and Mango on the table, the future's starting to look pretty bright for Windows Phone...

"And by deploying Windows 7, companies are saving, on average, $140 per PC per year. This generates a return on investment of 131% over a 12 month period."

Someone please tell me how?

the question i would like to ask is how many copies have been pirated vs licenses sold.

and since i read every comment and i didnt see it posted yet.. i'll go ahead and say it..

Windows XP is STILL better than Windoz Bloat 7

Why do i say that ? because i spent lots of time comparing (dual booting xp + 7)
Im an overclocker a pc game player a cracker and a programmer.
I'm the kind of guy that spends ALL his time trying to get a game like GTA4
to run with 1 more frame per second, spending no time playing the actual game
instead running benchmarks for hours on end..

i didn't hand select ever part in my computer and build it myself for nothing
i want performance NOT eye candy.

Can anyone on earth prove to me that windows 7 out performs windows xp ?
lets see some benchmarks ?

Im not trolling i'm just responding to the endless 7 fanboyism i have to tolerate
All i hear is "Likez OMG Windows 7 is da greatest OS ever made !!!1111ONE"

When people say Vista is garbage but Windows 7 is great i get a headache from
rolling my eyes so damn hard lol

So where is the proof to the "It's teh bestest" claims you all are making ?
lets see it..

When you mean BenchMarking do you mean.

DX9.c Vs DX10/11?
And CPU Draw Vs WDDM GPU Draw?

XP has no DX10/11 and all 2D Desktop Rendering is done on the CPU
Windows Vista/7 have DX10/11 and All 2D Desktop Rendering is done on the GPU

I tend to no longer follow or Trust Benchmarking XP Vs Vista/Windows 7. Thats like Benchmarking Windows 98 Vs XP back in the days.

now if you want to benchmark 95 vs 98 vs Me All on the same Graph that makes scenes
2000 Vs Xp on the same Graph makes scenes.
And finaly Vista Vs Windows 7 on the same Graph makes scenes.

There all based of the different/same Kernel, Diver model. One should never compare 2 different Structures for benchmarking. That only works on CPU's and GPU's Benchmarking

I am Not PCyr said,
the question i would like to ask is how many copies have been pirated vs licenses sold.

Probably 100:1 .Although why anyone would pirate windows when there are free, open source alternatives like GNU/Linux, is beyond me.
I am Not PCyr said,

Windows XP is STILL better than Windoz Bloat 7

Good question. It's been tested and found that WIndows XP outperforms Windows 7 substantially. In addition, it uses far less ram, harddisk space, cpu etc, and it boots faster.

I am Not PCyr said,

Can anyone on earth prove to me that windows 7 out performs windows xp ?
lets see some benchmarks ?

There is a youtube video somewhere showing the scrolling speeds of the two and how much cpu is used etc, and XP wins hands down. I'll look for it later. The only way Windows 7 can approach XP performance is if you have a powerful enough machine to make the returns diminishing, that is, others here will probably give you benchmarks of machines with 4+ gig of ram, quadcore cpu's, and sli graphics. However, on an average machine with 1-2 of ram, single/dual core cpu, and single mid range graphics card, XP will always out perform Windows 7, even when superfetch is enabled (superfetch is designed to compensate for 7's poorer performance compared with XP at the expense of memory).

I am Not PCyr said,

Im not trolling i'm just responding to the endless 7 fanboyism i have to tolerate
All i hear is "Likez OMG Windows 7 is da greatest OS ever made !!!1111ONE"

I know, it's quite banal really. Then again, they feel compelled to do that because there are so few reasons to upgrade from XP, which is still okay if you're into Windows.
I am Not PCyr said,

When people say Vista is garbage but Windows 7 is great i get a headache from
rolling my eyes so damn hard lol

+1 lol same. Some of them don't realise that Vista and 7 share the same code base It's a wonder what a new nick of paint will do. Microsoft uses the same trick with Office too
I am Not PCyr said,

So where is the proof to the "It's teh bestest" claims you all are making ?
lets see it..

Hehe. I'd like to see some too

WolvesHunt said,

XP has no DX10/11 and all 2D Desktop Rendering is done on the CPU

Wrong. The XP GUI is GPU accelerated, that is, drawing primitives are passed to the driver's 2d rendering functions.

Give it a try. Do a base install of XP without installing a graphics driver; now that's software rendering (CPU). Then try installing your graphics driver, woosh, better performance. I wonder why? Because it's GPU accelerated!

WolvesHunt said,

Windows Vista/7 have DX10/11 and All 2D Desktop Rendering is done on the GPU

Actually it's 3d accelerated if the composition manager (aero) is enabled. If you disable it, you have good old 2D acceleration just like XP
WolvesHunt said,

I tend to no longer follow or Trust Benchmarking XP Vs Vista/Windows 7. Thats like Benchmarking Windows 98 Vs XP back in the days.

It's common symptom when you dislike the results
WolvesHunt said,

now if you want to benchmark 95 vs 98 vs Me All on the same Graph that makes scenes
2000 Vs Xp on the same Graph makes scenes.
And finaly Vista Vs Windows 7 on the same Graph makes scenes.

XP is used by over 50% of the Windows installation base according to the wikipedia medium, therefore your analogy with 95/98 is fallacious.
WolvesHunt said,

There all based of the different/same Kernel, Diver model. One should never compare 2 different Structures for benchmarking. That only works on CPU's and GPU's Benchmarking

No benchmark is perfect, but the fact is XP does perform better then Windows 7 on average spec machines (by average, I don't mean quadcore, 4+ gig ram, sli high end discrete graphics machines)

Edited by Flawed, Apr 22 2011, 11:01pm :

Flawed said,
Probably 100:1 .Although why anyone would pirate windows when there are free, open source alternatives like GNU/Linux, is beyond me.

Because they actually want to use the software thats available for it that won't run on Linux? Or hey, maybe they actually just like it? I know plenty of people who run OSX but I don't call them a thief just because I dislike their OS and Apple's CEO.
Flawed said,
Good question. It's been tested and found that WIndows XP outperforms Windows 7 substantially. In addition, it uses far less ram, harddisk space, cpu etc, and it boots faster.

"Found" by who, a random benchmark via Google? For every one of those, I can find one that shows the exact opposite. Boot time is irrelevant nowadays, can't think of an OS that doesn't support sleep mode. Besides (my systems, not making a blanket "its this for me so its this for everyone" statement) Win7 typically boots and is ready to go where XP would show a desktop and still be loading stuff in the background. Memory? Of course it uses more memory, it's doing more things in the background that XP doesn't do, you don't get something for nothing, even in FOSS land. I can very easily add a bunch of resident services to my BSD boxes and bloat them up sky high as well. Don't forget about system caching.. the whole "unused RAM is wasted RAM" motto gets tossed around a lot, and that memory does get freed if needed.
Flawed said,
superfetch is designed to compensate for 7's poorer performance compared with XP.

Pure fanboy drivel and bullsh't, it's a program cache system designed to have software instantly running versus waiting a while for it to load. Preload says hi. I guess that's Linus' answer to compensate for Linux's performance versus BSD?
Flawed said,
Some of them don't realise that Vista and 7 share the same code base It's a wonder what a new nick of paint will do. Microsoft uses the same trick with Office too

[sarcasm]You got me there, and they throw away all the kernel and application source with every new build of Ubuntu too.[/sarcasm]

Flawed said,
Probably 100:1 .Although why anyone would pirate windows when there are free, open source alternatives like GNU/Linux, is beyond me.

Hmm... maybe because GNU/Linux is the biggest failure of software in the history of software? Or maybe because its just not worth pirating? Why do people steal gold instead of just using pyrite? It's beyond me.

i was pleased to see some well thought out replies my to my earlier comment !
in other words i was sticking my neck out and i should have chosen my words more carefully.
i expected to get flamed to death lol

seriously though some proof to peoples claims that something is better is all im driving at..
if it IS better than where is the proof ?

And i ofcourse understand that benchmarks only make sense when you have 2 things that can be fairly made, so with no DX11 on xp for example then obviously you can't compare that, BUT
how many apps only run on DX11 and not 8,9,10 etc as well ?

And i have used many linux distros and really wish they were more user friendly and cross compatible.. having to install an ati driver for example can be a nightmare lol

If more people do not express their desire for performance i'm afraid the system req's for every
windows version will drasticly increase for no good reason
As a pc gamer only (i dont own a console) i always have games that could run a lot faster
with higher quality settings, WITHOUT buying a $1,000 gfx card every few months.

Look at what new features are added with every version of windows versus the increase
in recommended system requirements. does it really seem to anyone that performance
is any priority to them ? I think they want gimicky features to sell the next version they pump out..

Lastly, i like windows and microsoft so i am no MS hater.
just feeling like a small minority that doesn't see what windows 7 is and what 8 will be..
a re branding of Vista..

I would never turn off Aero (WDM.exe) on ether Vista or windows7. If your pc can handle it. You will only preform better with it. So I see no reason to disable it just to match Xp for benchmarking.

I beleave once again that XP truly dose not Reander 2D Draw of the Desktop in GPU. Thats why WDDM was invented. All Active windows and such are stored and rendered in the GPU.
(could be entirly wrong here and mite wiki it)

Send its not that I don't like the Benchmarks out comes of New Vs old (98 vs xp or Xp vs Win7) I will always be a early adopter. Once Beta 1 Hits for any Windows OS I will use that and that only as Primery OS.

Vista Beta 1 through Windows 7 Beta 1. And will upgrade once Windows 8 Beta one comes out.. Why? mainly for driver and app testing. Yes it can hurt for the first few month but by the time its released I will know ever thing about the OS inside and out!.

But one should never Benchmark Old Kernel Vs New Kernel. Thats like Compairing a V4 vs V8 in cars. Not Pratical.

Quote"small minority that doesn't see what windows 7 is and what 8 will be..
a re branding of Vista.."

of course it only a re-branding of Vista (update). Just like Windows 98 & Me is to Windows 95.

untill the kernel is ether re-writen Or has a large enough Change to it. It will always remain a Typical (update) vs (upgrade)

OSX 10.5 to OSx 10.6 (same thing as Vista to Windows 7) or (Windows 95 to 98)

Edited by WolvesHunt, Apr 23 2011, 4:55am :

Flawed said,

Probably 100:1 .Although why anyone would pirate windows when there are free, open source alternatives like GNU/Linux, is beyond me.

Not everyone has the opinion as you. Dont you think the world would be a boring place if everybody liked the same things?

Personally I haven't tried Linux, and why would I when I'm perfectly happy with Windows 7?

Flawed said,

Good question. It's been tested and found that WIndows XP outperforms Windows 7 substantially. In addition, it uses far less ram, harddisk space, cpu etc, and it boots faster.

Windows 7 performs "well enough" for me. I'm not going to change the OS I use just to shave a couple of seconds off the boot time.

Windows XP uses less RAM because it doesn't have superfetch and it doesn't have the flashy Aero GUI. Unused RAM is wasted RAM, at least superfetch is using the RAM for something positive rather than just letting it sit there doing nothing.

Flawed said,

There is a youtube video somewhere showing the scrolling speeds of the two and how much cpu is used etc, and XP wins hands down. I'll look for it later. The only way Windows 7 can approach XP performance is if you have a powerful enough machine to make the returns diminishing, that is, others here will probably give you benchmarks of machines with 4+ gig of ram, quadcore cpu's, and sli graphics. However, on an average machine with 1-2 of ram, single/dual core cpu, and single mid range graphics card, XP will always out perform Windows 7, even when superfetch is enabled (superfetch is designed to compensate for 7's poorer performance compared with XP at the expense of memory).

Again, 7 performs "well enough." Who cares if XP is faster so long as 7 performs adequately?

I really don't care if 7 uses more cpu/memory while scrolling than XP so long as scrolling is smooth, which it is. Benchmarks are for geeks, not the end user. You can run your benchmark utilities telling you that XP outperforms Windows 7 but all the end user really cares is that the OS works smoothly.

XP used to crash all the time for me and I had to do a few reformats. Since I've had 7 I can't remember it actually crashing, and I haven't had to do a reformat. Whether Superfetch is to compensate for poor performance is irrelevant so long as the performance is acceptable with Superfetch enabled.

Flawed said,

I know, it's quite banal really. Then again, they feel compelled to do that because there are so few reasons to upgrade from XP, which is still okay if you're into Windows.

The superbar is reason enough for me to update from XP to 7. Being able to use a taskbar without text so you can fit more on it is a godsend.

The other thing I've noticed is that 7 has crashed far fewer times than other Windows OS, for me at least. I very rarely have to force close tasks on 7 and the actual computer is rarely ever slow.

Flawed said,

+1 lol same. Some of them don't realise that Vista and 7 share the same code base It's a wonder what a new nick of paint will do. Microsoft uses the same trick with Office too

They may share the same code base but 7 is lightyears ahead of vista in terms of stability.

---

Everything I've said above is my opinion as an end user. I don't tweak my OS, benchmark it, etc like I do my smartphone.. I just use the OS for web browsing, chatting, listening to music, playing flash games, updating my CV, emails, etc etc.

I'm not a Microsoft "fanboy." Windows is all I've ever used and I'm happy with it. If I was unhappy with it then I might have a reason to try Linux etc. For all I know Linux is a billion times better than Windows, but why fix what isn't broken? Windows works for me so I have no interest in an alternative.

Now answer me this, have you actually used win7 or are you just reading benchmarks and win7 hate sites on the net? I ask you this because not once in your above two posts did you actually mention your own first hand experiences with the operating system, which is, in the end, all that really matters. Don't be blinded by your obvious hatred of Microsoft/Windows and actually try an OS before you attempt to put it down, because even with all of the apparent faults and flaws that you've outlined above, it works perfectly fine for me.

Northgrove said,
Good! They'll need it for their IE 10 compatibility.

No way. Microsoft will have no choice but to adopt IE9/10 for XP.

/Sarcasm

It is hard to believe but Windows 7 has been on the market for 18 months. During that time, the platform has experienced tremendous growth and adoption by users all over the world; including business environments.

If by adoption, you mean users buying new PC's, then I suppose yes. People aren't rushing out to buy a copy (not a licence, notice the distinction) of Windows 7 and downgrade from XP. Microsoft can thank the "ship on every PC sold monopoly" for that. Popularity and No Choice are not the same things.

There will no doubt be quite a few users/business who will upgrade to GNU/FOSS rather than downgrade to Windows 7.

Flawed said,
Popularity and No Choice are not the same things.

Here we go with the FUD nonsense again. Some manufacturer's do sell systems with Linux pre-installed, hardly a monopoly. (Or hey, buy a Mac.) Boils down to simple demand.. buy a system that has an OS that runs everything (Windows or Mac), or an OS that only has a couple quality apps and tell myself "if it doesn't run well I probably didn't need it anyway"?

I use BSD on a daily basis, occasionally dabble with Linux when the mood hits, I'm exposed to all what's out there in the FOSS world. Main desktop's OS? Win 7. Runs everything, no questions asked, no jumping through the occasional hoops to get it working, and not limiting myself to the "but it runs Libre and Gimp" mentality. (Oh hey, so does Windows.) Servers? 17 running 2008 R2, 5 with BSD. That's by choice, not that Mr. Ballmer or Mr. Stallman put a gun to my head.

Jen Smith said,

Some manufacturer's do sell systems with Linux pre-installed, hardly a monopoly.

Go to your local PC World/computer store, play the spot the non-Windows machine game, then come back and say the same thing.
Jen Smith said,

I use BSD on a daily basis, occasionally dabble with Linux when the mood hits, I'm exposed to all what's out there in the FOSS world. Main desktop's OS? Win 7. Runs everything, no questions asked, no jumping through the occasional hoops to get it working, and not limiting myself to the "but it runs Libre and Gimp" mentality. (Oh hey, so does Windows.) Servers? 17 running 2008 R2, 5 with BSD. That's by choice, not that Mr. Ballmer or Mr. Stallman put a gun to my head.

You claim to be neutral and try different platforms, but your comments belie that claim. In fact, from what I can tell, you are a clearly a fanatical proponent of Windows and Microsoft, and defend them at every opportunity, so you can dispense with the superfluous "I use Linux on a daily basis, but.." rhetoric.

Flawed said,
Go to your local PC World/computer store, play the spot the non-Windows machine, then come back and say the same thing.

Which goes back to the whole "demand" thing. Think a retailer is going to carry around extra hardware that mayyyyyybe might sell one or two in a few months? Nothing to do with Microsoft saying "hey don't sell that." They're going to where the money is. The pre-installed Linux systems are easily found online though, and not some random no-name's either. Dell for example has a few.

Flawed said,
You claim to be neutral and try different platforms, but your comments belie that claim. In fact, from what I can tell, you are a clearly a fanatical proponent of Windows and Microsoft, and defend them at every opportunity, so you can dispense with the superfluous "I use Linux on a daily basis, but.." rhetoric.

Ah, but it's ok to throw the Linux rhetoric around on every post you can find, even if it has nothing to do with Linux in the first place? (And what about Apple? Surely they must be offensive as well..) And hardly a fanatic. I do use plenty of non-Microsoft products daily as well. Apache for example.. know it, use it, love it for when it's the right tool for the job. I don't get on my soapbox and preach the Book of Stallman however when somebody asks a question about Windows Server.

Edited by Jen Smith, Apr 22 2011, 8:50pm :

Flawed said,

Go to your local PC World/computer store, play the spot the non-Windows machine game, then come back and say the same thing.

You claim to be neutral and try different platforms, but your comments belie that claim. In fact, from what I can tell, you are a clearly a fanatical proponent of Windows and Microsoft, and defend them at every opportunity, so you can dispense with the superfluous "I use Linux on a daily basis, but.." rhetoric.

You do know people use a few Microsoft products just because it works for them... Jen was just giving you a different point of view once you drank too much Stallman Koolaid But don't let that stop you assuming people are MS Fanboy because they said a positive thing about some MS product.

As I was scrolling down the comments something felt out of place. Then it struck me ! I had yet to read the usual Flawed troll on Microsoft news ! Duh !

Flawed said,

People aren't rushing out to buy a copy (not a licence, notice the distinction) of Windows 7 and downgrade from XP.

There will no doubt be quite a few users/business who will upgrade to GNU/FOSS rather than downgrade to Windows 7.

Flawed said,
There will no doubt be quite a few users/business who will upgrade to GNU/FOSS rather than downgrade to Windows 7.

Please, don't give me that stupid anti-MS Linux fanboy bulls*** that you seem to be spewing all over Neowin. It's obvious here, Flawed, that you're nothing but a close-minded Linux-worshipping idiot who hasn't come out from under his rock since 2003 to actually USE Microsoft's newer operating systems. Why is it that most Linux fanboys keep making references to technology in the early 2000s? Sure, Windows XP wasn't the best OS, but that was then. Windows Vista and 7 are clearly superior to ANY stupid GNU/FOSS distribution that currently exists.

The fact is, Linux fanboys keep referencing to the late 1990s and early 2000s because that was when Windows still could be criticized against some of the capabilities of Linux and Mac OS (Unix). That was also when some people in the media viewed Microsoft as an "evil" corporation. As of NOW, things are MUCH different: Windows lacks any bad things to it--it has wicked boot time, great speed, Direct3D graphics are much better than any OpenGL crapware that you can find on Linux/Mac (and John Carmack agrees, too), great compatability, the BEST stability (can't tell you how many times my only freakin' Ubuntu computer crashes randomly), and the most innovative user experience. And just because Windows is installed on most new computers, that doesn't mean moot about whether or not people prefer it less over Linux. If you're convinced it does, you have no intelligence whatsoever.

And seriously? DOWNGRADE to Windows 7? Over what, Linux! That's like saying that I'll be downgrading to gold if I trade in some monkey poop! Don't make me laugh! The only feature that Linux has over Windows is Compiz, which proves that only eye-candy can make Linux appear better to use than Windows. And Compiz crashes half of the time! Give me a break...

The fact is, the Linux community KNOWS that their operating systems are inferior to Windows, so they have organizations like WINE, which blatantly rip-off features invented by Microsoft for their operating systems. Even the user interfaces--start button at the bottom-left hand corner of taskbar? Come on! I used to have some respect for Linux, but I guess Ballmer was right: Linux is just a cancer on this industry. Real innovators like Microsoft, Apple, and Google are the only ones who deserve to make operating systems.

I can understand how you clearly don't even KNOW what Windows 7 is, as you've never used it and have no experience based on your posts. I can also understand how you naturally have an ignorant bias against Microsoft and towards Linux, too. But, I cannot understand your pathetic ranting when you say that Linux is actually better than Windows, when that's such an ignorant, idiotic, and unrealistic statement. Go under your bridge, troll, but get off of Neowin while you're at it. Your kind does not belong here...

PlogCF said,

Please, don't give me that stupid anti-MS Linux fanboy bulls*** that you seem to be spewing all over Neowin. It's obvious here, Flawed, that you're nothing but a close-minded Linux-worshipping idiot who hasn't come out from under his rock since 2003 to actually USE Microsoft's newer operating systems. Why is it that most Linux fanboys keep making references to technology in the early 2000s? Sure, Windows XP wasn't the best OS, but that was then. Windows Vista and 7 are clearly superior to ANY stupid GNU/FOSS distribution that currently exists.

The fact is, Linux fanboys keep referencing to the late 1990s and early 2000s because that was when Windows still could be criticized against some of the capabilities of Linux and Mac OS (Unix). That was also when some people in the media viewed Microsoft as an "evil" corporation. As of NOW, things are MUCH different: Windows lacks any bad things to it--it has wicked boot time, great speed, Direct3D graphics are much better than any OpenGL crapware that you can find on Linux/Mac (and John Carmack agrees, too), great compatability, the BEST stability (can't tell you how many times my only freakin' Ubuntu computer crashes randomly), and the most innovative user experience. And just because Windows is installed on most new computers, that doesn't mean moot about whether or not people prefer it less over Linux. If you're convinced it does, you have no intelligence whatsoever.

And seriously? DOWNGRADE to Windows 7? Over what, Linux! That's like saying that I'll be downgrading to gold if I trade in some monkey poop! Don't make me laugh! The only feature that Linux has over Windows is Compiz, which proves that only eye-candy can make Linux appear better to use than Windows. And Compiz crashes half of the time! Give me a break...

The fact is, the Linux community KNOWS that their operating systems are inferior to Windows, so they have organizations like WINE, which blatantly rip-off features invented by Microsoft for their operating systems. Even the user interfaces--start button at the bottom-left hand corner of taskbar? Come on! I used to have some respect for Linux, but I guess Ballmer was right: Linux is just a cancer on this industry. Real innovators like Microsoft, Apple, and Google are the only ones who deserve to make operating systems.

I can understand how you clearly don't even KNOW what Windows 7 is, as you've never used it and have no experience based on your posts. I can also understand how you naturally have an ignorant bias against Microsoft and towards Linux, too. But, I cannot understand your pathetic ranting when you say that Linux is actually better than Windows, when that's such an ignorant, idiotic, and unrealistic statement. Go under your bridge, troll, but get off of Neowin while you're at it. Your kind does not belong here...

+1

Windows 7 is good, its kind of like Win XP was, just not as much. Good stable Os after the PR nightmare of the previous version, Im not going to declare my un dying gratitude tho..

Its generally going to be the best Windows OS as its the latest, just wish people wouldn't declare their love for a few extras. The OS needs to go a lot further.

Yeah! Go 7 and MS! I just hope Windows 8 is even better than Windows 7. It was a truly fantastic OS, unlike some of its rivals...

I can't believe that Linux organizations such as WINE still think people are "forced" to use Windows, as opposed to some "better" operating system like Ubuntu or Mac OS X. That makes sense, because we all need an OS with less capabilities and sophistication than Windows 98. Trust me, I have one Ubuntu computer in my house, and I love the only thing that it can do--remind me why I use Windows most of the time.

I hope Windows takes back that stupid 10% market share which Linux and Mac share together, so that we don't have to deal with more arrogant jerks like Linux and Mac fanboys who still are convinced that Windows is a crummy OS for "commoners," while Linux and Mac are for the "elites."

@ mrwhistler i am with you i still have vista ulti 64 bit on the Gaming rig that i have connected to the 65" 3D tv with a Blue ray and 3d vision kits, the eyecandy is still superior in vista ,though harder on resources,but if you have the hardware ,who cares, the 2 main gaming rigs are equiped with seven , where eyecandy isn't so important. i do hope Win 8 brings some better eyecandy and better utilization of resources. other wise i won't ned it.

Most of you won't remember this, but Windows XP was a big steaming pile of trash for the first 3 years until Service Pack 2 came along. Actually, it wasn't THAT bad, but it was seen in the same light as Vista (which also wasn't that bad). The only difference is XP was out for almost 6 years when Vista came along, compared to Windows 7 coming out only 3 years after Vista.

Not an excuse. Just a reality that most of us selectively forget.

MemphisNET said,
Most of you won't remember this, but ..

Heh yes, I do remember all the "XP is bloated, slow, ugly, buggy, incompatible etc etc you can pry Windows 95 out of my cold dead hands" threads on various forums (even some here)... guess old habits still die hard.

Jen Smith said,

Heh yes, I do remember all the "XP is bloated, slow, ugly, buggy, incompatible etc etc you can pry Windows 95 out of my cold dead hands" threads on various forums (even some here)... guess old habits still die hard.

Windows 98 was the true King ;-)

MemphisNET said,
Most of you won't remember this, but Windows XP was a big steaming pile of trash for the first 3 years until Service Pack 2 came along. Actually, it wasn't THAT bad, but it was seen in the same light as Vista (which also wasn't that bad). The only difference is XP was out for almost 6 years when Vista came along, compared to Windows 7 coming out only 3 years after Vista.

Not an excuse. Just a reality that most of us selectively forget.


Actually, you are partially correct about XP. Before Service Pack 1 not Service Pack 2, it was horrible and things did not work properly. i do know as me and someone were trying it and we both complained about it, then i went back to Windows 2000.

hmmm, guess I must be one of the few who got rid of 7 on my laptop and put Vista x64 Ultimate. With the latest updates and platform updates, it performs identical on my laptop, plus I love the dreamscenes and also the taskbar, which I hate in 7, lol......guess I'm old fashioned

MrWhistler said,
hmmm, guess I must be one of the few who got rid of 7 on my laptop and put Vista x64 Ultimate. With the latest updates and platform updates, it performs identical on my laptop, plus I love the dreamscenes and also the taskbar, which I hate in 7, lol......guess I'm old fashioned

hmm after poking around on youtube I notice some one posted a video of running dreamscene on his Windows 7 X64. Apprently Windows 7 has the Function of DreamScene Built in. All you need is 2 .Dll files and a Registery Fix to enable it again. I went and found the files and it works well on Win 7 x64. Format wmv & Mpeg support.

edit : why did my reply go under your comment?

Windows 7 is quite honestly one of their best achievements. Windows 95 brought us the taskbar, Windows 2000 brought us amazing stability, XP stability and a friendly UI and Windows 7 an all rounder.

DKcomputers said,
Windows 7 is quite honestly one of their best achievements. Windows 95 brought us the taskbar, Windows 2000 brought us amazing stability, XP stability and a friendly UI and Windows 7 an all rounder.

golden OS

Vista = security , Stability and more stabitliy at the price of compitablity

bomba6 said,
350,000,000 copies x 200$ a piece = 70,000,000,000$ ? Isn't it?

negtive

most of them are OEM sell which get sold for far less

bomba6 said,
350,000,000 copies x 200$ a piece = 70,000,000,000$ ? Isn't it?
Also, not all of the copies are $200. I bought Home Premium for ~$110.

satukoro said,
Also, not all of the copies are $200. I bought Home Premium for ~$110.
And i bought Ultimate for $499

I'm very ready for my school to retire XP. But when we take our DCAS (state testing) some of the netbooks came with Windows 7, but they installed XP on them.

No wonder, Win7 is the most stable, more feature rich and nicest looking Windows OS to date, good job MS!

An amaizng OS, it really is. I was using it, right since the first public beta. Timebombed. I couldn't go back to vista.

Now im using Win8 on a partition. It's as stable as Win7, and more features, it seems MS is really becoming that amazing company it was at one point.

+1 MS.

Fubar said,
Inb4 Windows ME.....

It was my first computer. XD It was my poor Granddad's first computer as well, and he was never able to use a computer competently ever again after using it.

"It is hard to ignore that Windows Vista set the groundwork for the success that Windows 7 is now experiencing."

But wasn't Vista the biggest failure in history of mankind?

Wait for it... wait for it...

KavazovAngel said,

But wasn't Vista the biggest failure in history of mankind?

Wait for it... wait for it...

I thought the biggest failure in the history of mankind was Steve Jobs........ZING!

KavazovAngel said,
"It is hard to ignore that Windows Vista set the groundwork for the success that Windows 7 is now experiencing."

But wasn't Vista the biggest failure in history of mankind?


That doesn't change the fact that Windows 7 is based off Windows Vista.

KavazovAngel said,
"It is hard to ignore that Windows Vista set the groundwork for the success that Windows 7 is now experiencing."

But wasn't Vista the biggest failure in history of mankind?

Wait for it... wait for it...

It must be nice to have never used Microsoft BOB or WinME....

Peter Griffin said,

I thought the biggest failure in the history of mankind was Steve Jobs........ZING!

yes, he was, but he is also the biggest turn around story too

Peter Griffin said,

I thought the biggest failure in the history of mankind was Steve Jobs........ZING!

+ he doesn't have ethics, he only knows how to suck money.

Frankly, Windows 7 is the best OS that's come out since Windows 2000. Plus, I think it hasn't had the initial bad rap that Vista had when first released, so its adoption rate has been much faster. It's just an awesome product. I've never been so pleased with an operating system.

devHead said,
Frankly, Windows 7 is the best OS that's come out since Windows 2000. Plus, I think it hasn't had the initial bad rap that Vista had when first released, so its adoption rate has been much faster. It's just an awesome product. I've never been so pleased with an operating system.

+1

We also have to remind us that many apps didn't work with Vista because the apps were simply using admin rights for no reasons and in the wrong places, or the programs were simply broken by itself. (or even blocked like Logitech did, even when things worked perfectly).

With Win7 being almost the same, this change was behind us for like three years allowing all those devs to fix things up. So it's not strange that Win7 had a better reputation at launch compared to Windows Vista.


* Note, I have to say this is my experience with vista. I know some of you, probably network related, expierenced more issues in vista, other than apps