After 15 months, Windows 8 has sold 100 million fewer copies than Windows 7 did
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
* Windows 8: 200 million
* Windows 7: 300 million
* Windows Vista: ~128 million
* Windows XP: ~120 million (based on an IDC estimate, as Microsoft released few early sales figures for XP).
It looks to me like Windows 7 was the anomaly: a stronger PC market at the time, and 8+ years worth of computers running XP looking for an upgrade. Vista was not a realistic option mainly due to a lack of drivers at release, much higher system requirements, and absurd pricing-- up to $359 for a boxed copy. By the time Windows 7 came out, manufacturers had gotten around to creating the Vista drivers that'd also work in 7, computers that would've been sluggish in Vista could easily run 7, and the price of the OS was slashed.
Getting people and businesses to upgrade again when they just did so in the past few years is a tougher sell. The hardware available at the release of Windows 8 was pretty un-exciting too, which probably contributed to 2013's record-breaking decline in PC sales overall. Only in the past 3-4 months have the updated models from most manufacturers made it into stores -- touchscreens, new form factors and doubled battery life -- reasons for people to actually want to buy a new PC.
Unlike in the past, the OS upgrade cycle has shortened considerably thanks to mobile devices. People don't really mind upgrading their OS even though Windows users might be more reluctant than others. But I am sure that the Windows 8 user interface changes are the real reason why most people would not even want to upgrade.
Also, many people avoided Vista because it was the release where Microsoft made significant improvements to their security model by showing (by default) UAC prompts every time the user installed software or did many other actions.
"...Microsoft made significant improvements to their security model by showing (by default) UAC prompts..."
I wouldn't call nag prompts that people learned to reflexively say ok to a significant increase in security. I don't know of any hard data (couldn't find any), but anecdotally, I see people just pressing "Allow" without any thought because it comes up so often.Yes, it's similar to the unix model, but people using unix probably have a much better idea of what security means and what the risks are going in.
EDIT: I just realized that you may have said that sarcastically...
Windows 8 was a consumer-oriented OS, focused on touchscreen devices, released shortly after most businesses had just moved on from XP, and would have required massive retraining of the average workforce.
In that perspective, I think 200 millions is actually a surprisingly good number.
Much of those segment are now diverted into iPads and low-cost Android tablets. Too bad Intel focused on 'ultrabook' instead of improving the Atom chip as fast as they could.
Win 8's UI is just. . . eeech. A year later and I still catch myself repeatedly slapping the cursor against the middle of the right side of the screen wondering why the hell it won't give me the charms bar.
You wrote, > Getting people and businesses to upgrade again when they just did so in the past few years is a tougher sell. [...]Only in the past 3-4 months have the updated models from most manufacturers made it into stores ...[which serve as] reasons for people to actually want to buy a new PC.
Microsoft needs the Win8 upgrade so they can get revenue. They also needed to get new features into peoples' hands (security, new APIs including touch, etc). But the customers aren't crying out for these features, as seen by the continued demand for XP.
Apple needed the Mavericks upgrade so they could get new features (security, new APIs including tighter integration with iOS, etc). But like Microsoft's customers, Apple's customers aren't crying out for these features either.
Which is why Apple priced it for free, and was "rewarded" by huge uptake (in their much smaller installed base: according to this they are about even with Windows 8: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....)
I don't know what Mavericks' penetration in the Apple base is but I would guess it's still under 15% if some articles from December are to be believed). Better than Windows 8, though: how big is the Windows upgrade market vs wait-for-a-new-PC market? I'd bet at this point the Windows upgrade market is close to nil.
Since Apple makes their profits from hardware and add ons (a few apps, plus the huge iTunes ecology) they can afford to do this. Microsoft cannot.
So they're the numerator, right? Then what's the denominator? It seems like that's tough to figure out. But I want to say something like, how many PCs were sold up until the release, and with what OSen?
I don't have an answer. I'm just curious because it's an interesting debate.
I'm glad Microsoft is backtracking on this. What they did was bold, but the product they forced down everyone's throat was just so terrible. Maybe it was innovative, but so much functionality and customizability was stripped. The Windows Store is a joke. I hate metro apps, I hate that Skype is a metro app, it's the only one I use and it bugs me that I can't put it on the desktop somewhere. I just want metro to go away forever.
Luckily under the hood is still that vaunted desktop Windows from old. It just needs to come back as soon as possible.
Is it just the fact that things have changed that causes all the hate or is there some rational explanation that I'm completely missing? You're right the Windows Store is pretty feeble but if you hate it's easy to ignore.
What I hate is moving my mouse to the corner by accident during a DayZ fire fight and windows charms covering up my screen.
What I hate about Windows 8 is having 3 or 4 different settings panes.
What I hate about Windows 8 is having to relearn how to open up settings.
What I hate about Windows 8 is that it has two kinds of applications, from apparently two different universes and they can't interact, or if they can I can't figure it out. I just pretend one of them doesn't exist.
What I hate about Windows 8 is that I have to right click on start button.
What I hate about Windows 8 is that if I want to hit a keyboard short cut that requires the windows key and I make a mistake I'm looking at the Metro screen.
When it comes to Metro I hate everything about it, including the little tiny arrow on the bottom right that brings up a second start menu like thing. The little label-less arrows that take you to some kind of app view that's littered with every exe on the computer and scrolls horizontally. Have you seen the way the windows selection charm works? You drag your mouse into the top corner, then drag down to see all the open applications, this list also includes metro applications. The Windows 8 search thing is not even remotely as good as the old Windows 7 search in the start menu and it's only available in metro.
I can go on but I'm tired of being angry and annoyed.
Turn off corner navigation.
> What I hate about Windows 8 is that it has two kinds of applications, from apparently two different universes and they can't interact, or if they can I can't figure it out. I just pretend one of them doesn't exist.
Metro and desktop applications can and do happily interact, I don't understand what you mean here.
> What I hate about Windows 8 is that I have to right click on start button
Why do you have to? You get a menu if you do but you don't have to, you used to get a menu if you right clicked the start button in Windows 7
> You drag your mouse into the top corner, then drag down to see all the open applications, this list also includes metro applications.
Just use Alt-Tab it works like it always has, you don't even need to see Metro
> The Windows 8 search thing is not even remotely as good as the old Windows 7 search
Here I have to respectfully disagree, IMHO the search in 8 is way better than in 7
Without wanting to make you even more angry and annoyed every one of the other issues seems to basically boil down to things have changed a bit and I don't like change.
Installing Linux on a laptop recently was a pain thanks to the secure boot nonsense, but I got there. Using windows while before getting it installed was terrible. There is a whole load of unintuitive stuff (closing a fullscreen app by dragging it down? That's obvious!).
It takes 3 or 4 actions to shut the computer down if I remember correctly - find the charm menu, click it, click shutdown, confirm. There are some gestures (I still don't know what) that flip between the start menu and the app you are on. So you end up clicking an app in the start menu, moving to the part of the screen you want to click, and trigger the gesture t go back to the start menu. The whole experience was awful (and I was only really using the computer for surfing the web for articles about dual booting Linux with secure boot).
One thing I am really enjoying about Linux just now, is that no matter what crap gets shoved onto the latest and greatest desktop, I can choose a different one. Xfce is currently very nice. Feels like what windows XP did.
Is it easier if you just temporarily remove the HDD, boot the laptop, get thrown into the UEFI settings, remove the unwanted crypto key, then put the HDD back in again? I was thinking about doing that the last time someone asked me to install Linux on their secureboot laptop.
Windows 8 is a customer-hostile mess that adds very little to the Windows 7 formula.
Huh? I ran Windows XP x64 Edition with no problems before Vista even arrived.
There may be businesses that will benefit from of the new features, but we're not one of them.
Granted, I think it's a slim chance, and I might be crazy.
In my experience, Windows 7 has been more stable than Windows 8. For average users, there's no real reason to upgrade.
The consumer release can push the boundaries in terms of features and experimentation, while the pro release can pickup stabilized Pro centric features and security updates from it.
While they are at it they can also deemphasize Metro from the Pro edition, leaving it as a mostly consumer feature.
On Windows' windows, all four corners presently control clipping. Two of those four could be devoted to scaling instead of clipping.
This is something a desktop OS could do to increase my productivity. One desktop /application/, Real VNC Viewer, does this -- and I find it very convenient.
EDIT: to downvoters - I'm just assuming that Microsoft make at least tens of dollars per licence sold. Am I wrong?