150 million Windows 7 licenses sold to date

Within weeks of Windows 7’s launch, it became clear that the new OS was already quite a bit more popular than Vista. That popularity hasn’t petered out. Microsoft’s Brandon LeBlanc updated the Blogging Windows, er, blog yesterday with news that, to date, a whopping 150 million Windows 7 licenses have been sold.

LeBlanc puts that figure in perspective, noting that Microsoft has sold a little over seven copies of Windows 7 every second since the launch. Windows 7 came out in stores on October 22, or about 244 days ago, so that number appears to check out—and it purportedly means Windows 7 is now "the fastest selling operating system in history." (Then again, the blogger doesn’t say if he’s counting pre-orders and those free Windows 7 upgrade coupons as post-launch sales or not.)

LeBlanc adds that Windows 7 is also proving popular among business customers. He writes, "Approximately 75% of enterprises are looking at Windows 7 for their organization."

I think that last number isn’t so much a testament to Windows 7’s qualities as a reflection of Vista’s negative traits, not to mention enterprise upgrade cycles. Many businesses simply chose to skip Vista and hold on to XP until the next Windows release. With XP support in its last throes, those organizations would be foolish not to at least consider an upgrade to Windows 7.

Comments closed
    • PenGun
    • 9 years ago

    I run Linux for most things but have to install a windows to play games.

    Win 7 is the first windows OS since NT 3.51 to not seriously upset me.

    • blitzy
    • 9 years ago

    i run a crap ton of virtual machines at work, between vista and 7 the main difference is the taskbar ui (boot time, action center, memory management are the only other real significant diffs and theyre very minor changes)

    vista was never that bad, and in fact w7 is only a slight improvement over vista.

    it is retarded to say vista is bad, and then say w7 is good because they’re so similar.

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    7 owes its success to Vista. I doubt Microsoft would have released 7 in the state it did without Vista’s crappy release.

    7 certainly owes its driver stability to Vista, but it also owes 64-bit and driver signing as a tickmark as well.

    All in all you can’t praise 7 over Vista too much because they are very closely related.

    Also I think all Vista’s bad rap is almost entirely from the first year of Vista’s release. After the first SP and Driver releases, it was as decent as 7’s Gold release (IMO.)

    Where I work we never could get printing working as perfectly as we had it on XP so it was never rolled out beyond a basic trialg{<.<}g

      • packfan_dave
      • 9 years ago

      Vista’s bad rap was about 25% due to issues that were ironed out by SP1, 45% due to the Apple-led misleading marketing campaigns of Microsoft’s competitors, 25% due to the overly long gap between XP and Vista creating the impression that XP would be around forever (I suspect with 20/20 hindsight, MS wishes they’d just thrown together a purely cosmetic UI refresh on XP SP2, renamed it, and released it in 2003/2004 just to keep people in the habit of upgrading), and 5% due to actual problems that exist in post-SP1 Vista.

        • Fighterpilot
        • 9 years ago

        Which is what a few of us were saying all along…..maybe a link to the W7/Vista hater threads is in order….
        You forgot however the large percentage of so called geeks that were so damn /[

      • pedro
      • 9 years ago

      The (unprecedented) lengthy public beta didn’t hurt too much either.

        • Sahrin
        • 9 years ago

        …The beta for NT6 was about 6 months longer than the beta for NT6.1 So I guess by “unprecedented” you mean “precedented by the release immediately preceding it” then yes, the NT6.1 beta was unprecedented.

          • pedro
          • 9 years ago

          Really? How long was the public beta period for Vista? And who was the ‘public’? And if it was that much longer, then how come it sucked so hard on release?

          Genuine questions, not trolling.

            • Sahrin
            • 9 years ago

            Well, it didn’t suck. It wasn’t well received, but I think that had more to do with people fearing and resisting change than the quality of the product. Ultimately it didn’t really matter how long MS kept it in beta – lazy vendors were not going to write good drivers (if nVidia took a full year to write a working (ie, not blue-screen) video driver – imagine how apathetic random printer company X was), and users were going to complain about UAC.

            NT6.0 was in public beta (that is, released to the public and available for official download from MS) from July 2005 to November 2006/January 2007 (I used November, but the OS didn’t technically release until January 2007 – RTM was in November); by my count that is 16 months. NT6.1 was in beta from January 2009 to July 2009 (6-7 months by my count).

    • thermistor
    • 9 years ago

    As a Vista and XP user on ye olde home network, I feel like the tackle dummy on Vista that made 7 so much better upon release.

    I had to wait around for drivers forever, etc., while 7 users could download proven/tested drivers starting day 1.

    But I think I’m gonna get me one of those Technet subscriptions and ‘do’ the whole home network upgrade to 7 at some point…maybe next year.

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      I actually have gear that doesn’t (fully) work with W7 while it has working Vista drivers. I still haven’t figured that out, the company stopped responding to my e-mails and haven’t publicly updated their drivers in a long while now.

      Maybe they’re all dead, or maybe they’re just that stupid.

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    I’d love for the European Union to follow-up their “browser ballot” ruling with an “OS ballot” screen: when a user first turns on their new PC, they are given the option of installing Linux or Chrome, etc (for free) or Windows, for an additional amount, billed to their credit card. Many people would choose to install (and pay for) Windows, and that’s fine. But it would be very interesting to see how many would opt for free Linux instead.

      • CampinCarl
      • 9 years ago

      The Linux ISO would almost certainly need to have an option for “Oh my god, I didn’t want this at all, give me Windows”. Otherwise, support lines would be overflowing.

        • liquidsquid
        • 9 years ago

        As well as include a link when installing Linux to purchase a 2nd laptop or PC with an OS pre-installed so you can get to support documentation or ask a question.

        • indeego
        • 9 years ago

        It all comes down to support. OEM’s don’t want to pay for support, amongst their biggest expenses, so offering Chrome as an option is unlikely until it matures.

        I’m curious how Google will manage this since their support has been horrific in my experienceg{<.<}g

    • mcnabney
    • 9 years ago

    Businesses upgrade/purchase new equipment when they have a valid need for it. It has to actually offer some specific benefits beyond being ‘new’. Just because Dell makes a new 24″ 1080p monitor does not mean you run out and replace your old Dell 24″ 1080p monitor. There actually has to be a reason.
    My business, about 100k employees, uses XP for the desktop and I don’t see a move to 7 anytime soon. The OS is just the platform and I KNOW there are applications that we use that they could never get running on Vista. Why break working apps when even the remote management / deployment improvements are marginal?

      • UberGerbil
      • 9 years ago

      Most businesses /[

    • ModernPrimitive
    • 9 years ago

    I love Windows 7 much more than Vista and Vista never gave me any grief other than the annoying indexing/hdd cranking

      • Sargent Duck
      • 9 years ago

      I enjoyed Vista, never had any problems with it. Of course, that didn’t stop me from getting my Win7 pre-order when they had that sale going on…

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    150 million x $100 for home ed = lots of cash

    of course its even higher than that due to teh price of retail versions and pro and ult editions.

    I just put an old PC together, and will be popping my linux cherry soon, see how ubuntu is.

      • wobbles-grogan
      • 9 years ago

      Tis fantastic!

      Ubuntu 10.04 runs really well on low-speced, old machines. 512 RAM is more than enough for it.

      • Jon T
      • 9 years ago

      Educational / 3rd world licences are less, much less.

        • UberGerbil
        • 9 years ago

        So is the amount the OEMs pay for their versions, and that represents the largest chunk of sales. Business volume licenses are quite a bit off list as well (though they are more likely to have “Pro”) and you can be sure Microsoft is counting every one of those, even if not all the client installs authorized by the licenses have actually been used.

    • SLI_Fallen
    • 9 years ago

    Sigh.

    Windows 7 *IS* Vista….. Vista “SP3″ (essentially.)

    And here is your proof. A chronology:

    We start with Windows 3.1-V 3.1 (duh) lol.
    Next (major) Version: Windows 95 -V4
    ” ” ” : Windows XP -V5
    ” ” ” : Windows Vista -V6
    Now, with Windows 7 you must be thinking that is V-7 right? WRONG!
    Windows 7 Is V-6.1 HA!!

    Feel free to try this yourself on any windows box you have (with these OS’s) Open a command window and type “winver” and press enter…

    Microsoft knew that Vista’s reputation was tarnished, so they just (essentially) wrapped a new kernel around Vista and a couple of tweaks and Wala! new OS…with a new name. After SP1, Vista was significantly better..but the damage was already done. (apparently people have a short memory. Windows XP was a complete and total PIG when it launched but I digress)

    Way to go MS!

    Have a nice day.

      • Helmore
      • 9 years ago

      If Windows 7 can be considered as V6.1 then Windows XP is V5.1 and not V5. Windows 2000 should be V5 according to your reasoning.

      • Grigory
      • 9 years ago

      Wala!

      • axeman
      • 9 years ago

      XP wasn’t that great on launch, I’ll agree. In fact it’s not as great as everyone thinks it is now. And Vista gave Windows a far needed security overhaul even though UAC’s initial implementation was annoying as hell. Windows 7 is mostly a cosmetic overhaul, and most of the new stuff is not really part of the core operating system. In fact, there are some changes that are worse than Vista IMO. They tried to simplify and streamline the explorer interface, but I find it even more annoying than ever, because there’s even less options for customizing it to fit one’s preferences than ever before.

      • Waco
      • 9 years ago

      The differences between Vista and 7 are a bit deeper than “a few tweaks”.

      • EsotericLord
      • 9 years ago

      Old news is old. MS has been following that cycle since Windows 95.

      95/98 were the same tech, 2000/xp were the same tech, and now vista/7 is the same tech.

      If this is news to you, you must be new to the IT world.

      • StuG
      • 9 years ago

      This first post just made me lol…fail.

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      Who’s Wala?

      • Jon T
      • 9 years ago

      The kernel may be NT 6.1, but the RTM build is 7600. Vista was 6000, XP was 2600.

        • Sahrin
        • 9 years ago

        The consumer OS build numbers are incremented based on marketing. (First NT6.1 beta build was 7000, the last RC build was 7264 – from RC2 to RTM was 7600, but the RTM build was only bug fixes over RC2).

      • pogsnet
      • 9 years ago
        • Sahrin
        • 9 years ago

        98 was an entirely different codebase. From Windows XP onwards, the consumer operating systems have run on Windows NT.

      • Sahrin
      • 9 years ago

      Facts are fun:

      Version Marketing name
      NT 3.1 Windows NT 3.1
      NT 3.5 Windows NT 3.5
      NT 3.51 Windows NT 3.51
      NT 4.0 Windows NT 4.0
      NT 5.0 Windows 2000
      NT 5.1 Windows XP
      NT 5.1 Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs
      NT 5.2 Windows XP
      NT 5.2 Windows Server 2003
      NT 5.2 Windows XP
      NT 5.2 Windows Home Server
      NT 6.0 Windows Vista
      NT 6.1 Windows 7

      XP was NOT version 5 …it was version 5.1. So much for that theory of “major releases.” You really meant to say “Windows 2000 was a major release – and XP was just SP3.” But wait…then what was XP-SP2?

      Other than “new releases are evolutionary” you don’t appear to have much of a point. Are you saying that MS should throw away their entire codebase every time they release a new OS? I assure you, doing it your way (continuously recycling the code and selling the same version for 10 years – and then releasing a disruptive new version once)) would be *much* cheaper for them.

        • Krogoth
        • 9 years ago

        You forgot about x64 flavors of XP and 2003. They were 5.3. 😉

          • Sahrin
          • 9 years ago

          No, Windows XP x64 PE is the same NT version as Windows 2003 (5.2). Just like Vista x64 and 32-bit are the same version (6.0).

      • YeuEmMaiMai
      • 9 years ago

      lol talk about being horrible with windows versions

      left out

      Windows 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.11
      Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4, 200

      Windows 7 actually falls right in line as what XP was to 2K according to the command prompt

      Windows 2000 reported Windows 5.0
      Windows XP showed up as Windows 5.1

      Windows Vista shows up as 6.0.xxx
      Windows 7 shows up as 6.1.xxxxx

      Since Windows 7 is based upon NT technology we are on our 4th Major release

    • pedro
    • 9 years ago

    7 cheers for 7!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This