40M Windows 8 Licenses Sold In One Month

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Despite all the complaining about Windows 8 being "too confusing," Microsoft's latest OS has sold forty million licenses in just one month. That puts it ahead of Windows 7 at the same stage. :eek:

Microsoft Corp has sold 40 million Windows 8 licenses in the month since the launch, according to one of the new co-heads of the Windows unit. The new operating system is outpacing sales of Windows 7 at the same stage, Tami Reller, finance and marketing head of the Windows business, said at an investor conference held by Credit Suisse.
 
How many of those licenses are bought by Dell, HP and other oem manufacturers, 50% 80% 95%?
 
I've been using it as my main OS for a couple weeks now. It works just fine. I only open metro every few days just to mess around with it.
 
i would hope so since they are probably including the tablet sales too....
 
It seems there's a larger audience for Windows 8 then I thought. Either that or those people have no idea what they're getting themselves into.

Genius.jpg
 
I have no idea how many were sold to major oem's, but I've purchased 3 win 8 copies so far. It's just cheaper to upgrade a win 7 premium machine to win 8 pro than to win 7 pro as required to connect to an AD server.

If I had to guess, id say 85% were sold to OEM's though, the rest being a mix of the $15 and $40 upgrades.
 
I have no idea how many were sold to major oem's, but I've purchased 3 win 8 copies so far. It's just cheaper to upgrade a win 7 premium machine to win 8 pro than to win 7 pro as required to connect to an AD server.

If I had to guess, id say 85% were sold to OEM's though, the rest being a mix of the $15 and $40 upgrades.

Actually, historically, 98% of users get Windows from OEM systems, and 2% are upgraders/builders. I wouldn't expect that to significantly change for Windows 8 though we don't have exact figures at this point. (I forgot this when replying to wolfkin.)
 
I bought it because it was cheap, and I figure I had to try it sometime. Sure it only lasted about two days on my PC, but I got a lot of much needed screaming out of my system.
 
Was messing around with it at Office Depot the other day (I bought a copy for $15 but haven't installed) and it seems pretty easy to use in both touch and non touch and this was the first time I ever used it or seen it in person. I'm not sure what people found so hard about it although the change in location for shutdown was odd and unnecessarily hidden (relatively) deep. I'll install it eventually, but have no need to rush to it.
 
I'm sure the $15 upgrade thing that was going on for awhile helped.

Win 7 had deals at release that were just as good or better. I guess the excuse making is to be expected, though, so I won't judge too harshly.
 
The whole $15 and $40 upgrade prices were probably done so they could post huge sale numbers in the first month. Unfortunately, it's kind of like having a Corvette and Chevy selling new and "upgraded" square wheels to owners for a small fee.
 
I only see the start screen briefly when the OS loads and when I need to search for something by typing out what I need to find. Other than that, it's a better and more improved "Windows 7" experience for me. If you think the start screen is confusing, don't use it.
 
The whole $15 and $40 upgrade prices were probably done so they could post huge sale numbers in the first month. Unfortunately, it's kind of like having a Corvette and Chevy selling new and "upgraded" square wheels to owners for a small fee.

Win 7 was a free upgrade for a while after release for Vista owners, iirc. How does that fit in with your grand unified theory of this?
 
I have two copies. One got installed and then uninstalled a little later on a laptop and the other isn't installed, but if I had a touch device it would work better for me. On a not touch computer though, it isn't really an improvement.
 
Win 7 was a free upgrade for a while after release for Vista owners, iirc. How does that fit in with your grand unified theory of this?

Pretty much everyone had accepted the Windows 7 upgrade as an apology for Vista, as everyone who reviewed it said Win 7 is what "Vista should have been". It was also noted that Win 7 could have been implemented (at least the parts of it that mattered) as a service pack for Vista. Windows 8 is supposed to be a "game changer", and all I see is another apology coming. I actually bought a retail copy of Vista Ultimate, and promptly went back to XP. I bought Win 8 and promptly went back to Win 7. If Windows 8 is really great, then why is the guy who fronted its development looking for a new job now?
 
Probably about the same amount as 7, Vista, XP, etc. in their time.

Probably not, when those other OS's came out I didn't see huge marketing campaigns showing how laptops and tablets are one in the same, they seem to really be pushing this aspect of Windows 8 and the hardware that it works on.
 
I only see the start screen briefly when the OS loads and when I need to search for something by typing out what I need to find. Other than that, it's a better and more improved "Windows 7" experience for me. If you think the start screen is confusing, don't use it.

ArbY, I agree COMPLETELY. I'm really liking it more than Windows 7 at this point. The hate is just not flying this time. It's good. Really good.
 
I guess the picture password feature can be a huge hit with the mass consumer.
 
Pretty much everyone had accepted the Windows 7 upgrade as an apology for Vista, as everyone who reviewed it said Win 7 is what "Vista should have been". It was also noted that Win 7 could have been implemented (at least the parts of it that mattered) as a service pack for Vista. Windows 8 is supposed to be a "game changer", and all I see is another apology coming. I actually bought a retail copy of Vista Ultimate, and promptly went back to XP. I bought Win 8 and promptly went back to Win 7. If Windows 8 is really great, then why is the guy who fronted its development looking for a new job now?

Why ask me when you don't care what I think? What I heard, is that Sinofsky didn't want to share power in MS' new team oriented development strategy. I fail to see what the rest of your post (or even that bit I did answer) has to do with anything. Even if it was an apology, and Vista was that bad, then considering you could get Win 7 for free, and Vista was the worst OS ever (or whatever), then Win 7 should have done even better, and Win 8's sale show that it must be great because people didn't hate Win 7 or get it for free..?
 
I bought two licenses. I kept my HTPC on Win 7 because that interface is not so good with a tiny remote touchpad, but my personal laptop and main system are on Win 8. It's nice, really.
 
When it has sold more copies than Windows 7 and in less time then you can call it a 'win'. Until then these numbers mean nothing. Doesn't matter how well it sells in the first month if it stalls after that.
 
I've been enjoying Windows 8 as well. I also installed start8 and now it's even better. This operating system works much faster and the sleep/startup times are great.
 
Call BS. Its all OEM and of course that doesn't include downgrades.

When MS launches new OS they stop the previous COA.


Vista sold tons as well we see how that turned out.
 
Win 7 was a free upgrade for a while after release for Vista owners, iirc. How does that fit in with your grand unified theory of this?

Vista was broken. Win 7 was the fix. Of course they offered it for free. The complaints could be heard worldwide.
 
Vista was broken. Win 7 was the fix. Of course they offered it for free. The complaints could be heard worldwide.

SP1 for Vista pretty much fixed everything that was left that was wrong with it. Most of its broken stuff was because hardware people didn't know how to write good drivers for it. Windows 8 doesn't have that problem and can pretty much run any program that works on Windows 7. Its just the UI thing that really seems to get people all angry-face.
 
Most of its broken stuff was because hardware people didn't know how to write good drivers for it.
Unfortunately that's a very big thing to be broken, lol. If an OS could stand in and of itself were enough, Linux would be king.

I'm not a W8 fan, but I never expected it to sell poorly, I WANTED it to sell poorly, but I wasn't expecting it. Unfortunately marketing plays a larger role in the success of any mainstream... well... anything mainstream.
 
I dont see much wrong with windows 8 anyways. Besides UI change, didnt have any difficulty adapting to it.
If coming from xp or vista, i would rather get 8 than 7.
Not surprised by high number of sales
 
When it has sold more copies than Windows 7 and in less time then you can call it a 'win'. Until then these numbers mean nothing. Doesn't matter how well it sells in the first month if it stalls after that.

Windows 7 sold 60 million copies from it's launch October 22, 2009 through the end of 2009 so it looks like Windows 8 is well on its way of surpassing that. What's really great about these numbers at least on the surface is that everyone was expecting a slow start to Windows 8 and that it would pick up steam as new hardware comes out and prices drop a bit, so a solid start should mean Windows 8 is starts from a better position as it picks up steam.
 
Good sales numbers, don't make a good UI. MS knows Windows will sell regardless of what they do, and are acting as one would expect. After all, Win8's only real competitor is Win7. They can't really lose.
 
Back
Top