The latest stats that I read (which was for June) was that in terms of marketshare, Vista is at around 14.5% (down from almost 20% when Win7 was released) and right now Win7 is at around 13.5%. So if you factor in the percentage of 64-bit systems all combined, it puts 64-bit Windows platforms at roughly 8.25% give or take. These are all rough numbers, and there's varying estimates out there (some higher, some lower in terms of overall marketshare) but I think it's safe to say that 64-bit Windows systems are around 10% overall.

Windows XP usage has dropped as well since Win7 was released (by about 7%, it's now at about 62% of systems overall). So for the most part, Win7 has cannibalized both Vista and XP installations fairly equally, but the effect has been much more profound for Vista because there were far fewer systems out there running it. I would exepct that by the end of the year, Win7 will clearly surpass Vista. Long term, I'm looking for when XP drops below 50% marketshare; when that happens, I think that'll be the indicator that the transition is accelerating.

It's not that 64-bit Office is "broken", it's that most software vendors haven't gotten around to providing 64-bit versions of their ActiveX/COM components. So if your business depends on one (i.e.: an add-in for Word, Outlook, etc. or for VBA scripting) then you have to stick with the 32-bit version. A 64-bit process cannot load and execute 32-bit code in its address space. It's possible for 64-bit code to use a 32-bit out-of-process COM server, but most of them aren't written that way (the vast majority are written as in-process servers).

As of right now, yes, Windows XP SP3 reaches end-of-life in 2014. Of course, that doesn't mean that companies will automagically stop using it on that date, but I'm sure companies are using that as part of their migration plans.

If you think about it, it took about a decade to complete the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit, if you consider the release of Windows NT in 1993 as the starting point for the platform. Windows 95 is when it started becoming mainstream, and for a long time after that you continued to have businesses use 16-bit legacy applications. With the release of Windows 7, I think we're at the "Windows 95" point of that transition curve for 64-bit.

One other thing to keep in mind is that Y2K provided a reason for businesses to upgrade their hardware and software at once; so you saw a large shift in the late 90s as they prepared for the transition (or the apocalypse, depending on who you listened to). That was a significant driver towards phasing out their legacy 16-bit applications; there really is no corresponding justification for businesses to dump working 32-bit desktop applications in favor of 64-bit. For the most part, Suzy the Secretary and Bob the Shipping Clerk aren't going to get their work done any faster or better on a 64-bit system. And when there's no concrete, tangible benefit to their bottom line, companies aren't very interested in making technology investments "just because they can" (particularly in this economy).

Businesses don't tend to have that short of an upgrade cycle when it comes to operating systems. They typically prefer to stay on the trailing-edge of technology as long as possible -- "if ain't broke, don't fix it" is the mantra of most IT departments, particularly in larger companies. If you look at a lot of the "droneware" business desktops out there today, they're sold with 2-4GB RAM and downgrade rights to XP 32-bit. So while the system may be "sold" with a Win 7 64-bit license, that doesn't mean it's ultimately how it's being used.

The reality is though that 10% of Windows systems are 64-bit (there's actually still more systems running Vista than Windows 7 out there, although the gap is shrinking). The vast majority of Windows desktops are still running the 32-bit version of Windows XP, and that's not going to change until businesses decide they have a compelling reason to upgrade.

I haven't really been following this of late, but is all that SCO has, or do they have anything that actually amounts to real evidence of copying (i.e.: two source code files that are the same aside from non-code elements like comments, whitespace, etc.)? The example shown isn't even a reach, it's just ridiculous.

What a surprise that video games would be considered a prime suspect (no doubt the Internet as well). As soon as I saw the date 1990 mentioned, I had a sneaking suspicion where some people would end up taking this. If there really has been a decline in creativity here, I think we need to look no further than an education system that focuses on rote memorization and the kind of linear thinking required to meet standardized testing requirements. We treat our children as interchangeable cogs in a one-size-fits-all, 19th century educational system. And then we're shocked, shocked I tell you, that they're not as good at thinking outside of the box we've stuffed them into.