The Mac Sucks!

Microsoft appears to be learning the value of an open beta program in selling Windows. By opening the Windows 7 beta program as widely as it has, Microsoft has given many customers the opportunity to work with Windows 7 before its official release. This has very likely uncovered bugs that might not have been found until after the official launch, when their discovery might have impacted early sales (as happened with Vista). In addition, the time spent with the beta has given users confidence in Windows 7’s security, performance, and stability… enough that they’re willing to pre-order the release version based solely on experience with the beta. Perhaps not surprisingly, the adoption rate for Windows 7 already looks to be much greater than that for Vista.

According to Network World, Microsoft and other online retailers reported strong sales of Windows 7 upgrade licenses during the first hours of pre-order availability. The BBC reports huge sales in the U.K., with Windows 7 per-orders during the first 8 hours of availability exceeding those for the entire 17-week pre-order period for Windows Vista. In Japan, the Windows 7 pre-order inventory is already sold out. IDC analysts predict that 40 million copies of Windows 7 will be sold by the end of 2009, and 177 million copies of Windows 7 will be in place by the end of 2010. They also estimate that the products and services surrounding Windows 7 will generate $320 billion in revenue.

Savio Rodrigues, a self-styled “open source aficionado within the traditional software world” seems to be impressed with Microsoft’s early Windows 7 results. He may have a point when he says that “in today’s open source world, virtually no PC user would preorder Windows 7 based on press views alone. Users today expect to try the software before deciding to part with their money.” This is doubly true given the weak economy. If the current order volume is any indication, Windows 7 adoption rates will be among the highest in the history of Microsoft’s operating system.

Apple is fortunate in that it doesn’t generally have to contend with these “adoption” issues. Mac owners tend to trust Apple and its products, giving Apple the benefit of the doubt when new releases of the Mac OS cause “blue screens of death“, lead to printers that stop working, generate a series of problems described as “the worst OS upgrade experience I’ve ever had“, or issues so frustrating that people are able to write an entire blog about how “lame” their Mac has been since the upgrade.

Were issues like those commonplace among early Leopard adopters? It’s hard to say for sure. Could Apple have avoided them by running a public beta program similar to the Windows 7 beta? Probably. (Apple does beta test its software, but this is usually a closed program limited primarily to developers who pay for advance access to the products.) Will it ever happen? Not as long as customers continue to open their wallets for each new product, and Apple continues to practice “extreme secrecy” surrounding its new products. After all, it’s hard to “wow” a crowd about your new OS release if everyone’s already been using it for 2-3 months in beta…

Glyn Moody posted “The Huge Hidden Cost of Microsoft Software” on June 30, 2009, on Computeworld UK’s web site, and a similar article on Slashdot. In the post, Moody discusses how various UK government organizations had to spend a great deal of money cleaning up the Conficker worm. Moody explains how this is a “hidden cost” of running Microsoft software in your environment, much as Microsoft and others have tried to claim there are “hidden costs” in running free open source software and Macs.

There are certain of Moody’s points I agree with. More malware exists for Windows than for Mac OS X and Linux combined. That’s just a fact. If the PCs in your organization become infected with malware like the Conficker worm, it can be extremely time-consuming and costly to clean up the mess. Again, it’s a fact. If you ran Linux or Mac OS X throughout your organization instead of Windows, a Windows worm like Conficker would be stopped dead because it can’t infect those operating systems. Fact. But the conclusion that this is a “hidden cost of using Windows” may be true to some degree, it’s not quite on target. Allow me to explain.

I work in a company with approximately 2,000 Windows PCs, maybe 50 Macs, a small number of Sun Solaris workstations, and a data center including Linux, Windows, Solaris, and mainframe operating systems. In an environment like this, with so many Windows desktops, you might be thinking I’ve had to clean up some massive infections.

Ironically, in my 20+ year career, the biggest malware mess I ever had to clean up didn’t affect Windows at all, and it wasn’t at the shop where I work now. The culprit was a little Classic Mac OS virus code-named “WDEF“. Infection via WDEF was very Mac-like. It “just worked”. If an infected disk was inserted into a Mac, it instantly infected the Mac’s hard drive. You didn’t have to run any programs or do anything. If you inserted a clean disk into an infected Mac, that disk became infected. The WDEF virus managed to find its way onto every Mac in our company and on to most of the floppy disks. I was able to trace it back to a disk a single employee (yeah, it was me) brought into the office from home. I can’t tell you how many hours I spent cleaning up that mess (we had only a dozen Macs but literally hundreds of floppies to scan). I only found it because I was showing a co-worker how Macs didn’t really need antivirus software by running a scan with a free tool called Disinfectant. It was very humbling to see it detect WDEF, in addition to being painfully ironic.

It was also a valuable lesson. Over the 10+ years I was a Mac user, I had downloaded lots of free Mac software. When I ripped the shrinkwrap off my first antivirus package (bought after the WDEF incident), I was shocked to see how many viruses had already infected my supposedly “superior” system. During my time as a Classic Mac OS user, I saw more viruses than I’ve seen since… even though I’ve primarily been a Windows user, and still download lots of free programs. Mine may not be the typical experience, but it’s a true story.

Moody’s stories and mine share a common theme – and it’s obviously not Microsoft software. Take proper security precautions, no matter what computer you’re using, or you will pay a price eventually. I’m willing to bet if you investigate any of those very expensive cleanup deals mentioned in Moody’s article you’ll find that certain basic security precautions were ignored that would have cost FAR less than the cleanup effort for Conficker eventually did. Maybe they merely needed a cheap hardware firewall to keep the worm from getting in, or a cheap antivirus package to detect and clean it, or just to deny administrator access to their employees. As far as I’m concerned, Microsoft may share some of the blame but the bulk of it lies with the organizations themselves. I can say that with confidence because our 2,000-machine Windows environment didn’t see a single Conficker infection. Not one. (And no, I wouldn’t be so bold or stupid as to say that we “never will”… only that we’ve made all reasonable precautions to prevent such an occurrence. That’s about as much as you can ever really say about your security.)

While Mac users have been relatively free of malware, viruses have existed for OS X, Mac malware has made it into the wild, and it has resulted in the creation of a Mac-only botnet. I’ll bet if you could find the owners of the Macs whose systems are part of that botnet, they’d tell you they don’t need antivirus software because they’ve got a Mac, and Macs are immune to that stuff…

Linux has been relatively immune as well, but it too has seen Trojans, viruses, and other malware. The threat to Linux is nothing compared to the situation on Windows, but that doesn’t mean there is “no” threat.

If you go through life with the assumption that your platform of choice is totally secure, completely immune to malware, and impervious to hackers, the odds are good that you’re going to find yourself very sadly mistaken one day… just like I did when I ran that disinfecting program on my Mac those many years ago. Good security is a “hidden cost” of owning a computer, no matter whose logo is on the box or whose is displayed when you start it up.

As Ars Technica and other sites have reported, Microsoft has made a step toward pushing its employees away from competitors’ mobile phones. Reportedly part of its cost-cutting measures, Microsoft has begun denying employee reimbursement for cellular data plans unless they’re using phones based on Windows Mobile. That means Microsoft will no longer be paying for iPhone and Blackberry data plans.

In the short term, this will no doubt help Microsoft save a few dollars. In the longer term, it’s likely to benefit Microsoft in a lot of other ways. For example, if its employees are “coerced” into using Windows Mobile phones as a result of this shift in policy, that should help the company understand where it can improve Windows Mobile in the future. Users familiar with the Blackberry will undoubtedly put pressure on their peers to develop for Windows Mobile the things they perceive to be superior in the Blackberry platform. Users familiar with the iPhone and other smartphones will put pressure on the developers to enhance the Windows Mobile experience in other ways. In the end, it may make Windows Mobile a much better competitor than it is today. As Ars Technica notes, “Windows Mobile 6.5 may include tons of improvements, but it’s still a long way off from putting Microsoft back in the game (not to mention it’s still not yet available), so even with the incentive to move to Windows Mobile, I doubt many Microsoft employees will make the switch anytime soon. Maybe next year, when Windows Mobile 7.0 is expected, Microsoft employees will start switching.”

I’m a fan of netbooks. I carry my Asus Eee PC 1000H with me every day when I go to work, and on any trip away from home where I think I’ll possibly be bored. I use it to read news and comics on the web during my lunch hour at work, and even post an occasional article to my blogs (including this one). For the record, I’m happy with my netbook as it is, but I am always keeping an eye on the market to see if anyone produces a device I think I’ll like better. Unfortunately, it always seems that each new netbook has approximately the same specs. Never a faster processor than the 1.66 GHz Atom, never more than 1 GB of RAM, limited graphics capabilities, relatively small hard drives and SSDs, and XP Home. I know there are faster CPUs out there, chipsets that allow for more RAM, and better graphics cards. So why aren’t the netbook makers using them? Sadly, the answer is Microsoft.

The early netbooks offered Linux as their OS. Undoubtedly Microsoft saw this as a threat and tried to get netbook makers to include Vista instead. Netbook makers knew that Vista was too resource-intensive for netbooks, and pushed instead for the lighter Windows XP. Faced with Linux becoming the dominant netbook OS, which might bleed over into mainstream notebooks and desktops, Microsoft relented on Vista. Unfortunately for consumers, however, Microsoft also set limits on the hardware devices that could be shipped with XP.

Microsoft requires netbook makers to limit main storage to built-in flash drives of 16GB or less, or hard drives no larger than 160GB. Graphics cards can’t support anything newer than DirectX 9.0. Main memory can’t be larger than 1GB. The CPU must be single-core and no faster than 1GHz unless it’s an Intel Atom, Intel Celeron 220, AMD Geode LX or Athlon, Via C7-M or neon. Screen sizes can be no larger than 10.2 inches for a netbook or 14.1″ for a large-screen netbook. If you look at pretty much every netbook on the market right now, you’ll find they all pretty much bump against the maximum set by Microsoft and stop.

While Microsoft thinks it’s doing itself a favor by introducing these restrictions (and perhaps to some degree it is), what it’s doing in reality is creating a perfect opening for Apple. By placing artificial limits on the capabilities of netbooks, Microsoft thinks it’s protecting the market for Vista and limiting the continued use of Windows XP… and it is. But Apple doesn’t have to play within those limits because Apple won’t load its netbook with Windows. As a result, Apple could (in theory) introduce a dual-core netbook with a high clock speed, 4GB (or more) of RAM, a large hard disk or SSD, higher-end graphics, etc. Such a netbook would be superior to any of those currently shipping, and if priced properly (and able to also run Windows/Linux), Apple could carve out a very large chunk of the netbook market.

We’ve already seen in the past that netbook buyers (like myself) aren’t averse to using a non-Windows operating system. Early netbooks were almost all Linux machines, and many today still are. Microsoft managed to win back the market by making XP an option, while limiting the ability of manufacturers to innovate in that space. If it can’t release Windows 7 on time (or netbook makers are unwilling to adopt Windows 7), that gives Apple a very large opening to work with.

Realistically, it’s unlikely Apple will introduce a netbook in the sub-$600 price range. Steve Jobs has claimed in the past that they don’t know how to make a notebook or netbook in that price range that isn’t “crap”. (Since other manufacturers have produced netbooks in this price range that are quite usable, it’s more likely that Apple refuses to produce an inexpensive netbook than that it can’t do so.) If Apple does introduce a netbook device of some sort, I’m betting it will be more like the iPhone than the MacBook and probably unable to run a non-Apple OS. But I’ve been wrong about Apple before. However, the right device, released soon enough, could allow Apple to carve out a big chunk of this market for itself. Time will tell if this happens, of course.

One of Microsoft’s recent arguments against the Mac has been its notion of an “Apple Tax” that buyers of Apple products pay. Recently, Microsoft went on the offensive against Apple by distributing a (visually) clever fake tax return outlining the details of the “Apple Tax” as presented to them by a researcher they paid to calculate it. The problem with this advertisement as presented by Microsoft and its researcher is that it makes too many assumptions. Then again, it’s only intended as an “example” and not necessarily reflective of what most potential “switchers” would see.

Mac fans: I’m about to say something that’s probably going to make you light up your flamethrowers. But if you wait a moment before you pull the trigger, you might just agree with my “endgame”…

It’s appropriate for Microsoft or Linux advocates to make a comparison between the sticker price of a Macintosh and the sticker price of a PC with comparable hardware specifications. And if you compare the hardware specifications, you’re probably going to find in the majority of cases that the Mac is a little-to-a-lot more expensive than a PC built to match those specifications. However, calling that price difference an “Apple Tax” is fair only to a certain extent.

Since I have a Mac Mini sitting here on my desk, let’s use that Mac model as an example of what I mean. Suppose I live where space is at a premium. To me, it might be worth more to have a computer that is as small as possible. The Mini is, without question, very small. A low-end PC with the same specifications is probably, in most cases, going to be larger. Perhaps I’m willing to pay more to regain some desk or floor space. If so, at least some part of the price difference between a Mini and a standard PC is reflected in that added value to me.

Similarly, the Mini ships with a remote control. If that’s a feature I’m going to use, I need to factor into the price of a comparable PC the hardware (and perhaps software) needed to use that remote (unless the PC happens to include one, which most do not).

The Mini also (at least in my iteration) ships with iLife. If that’s software I will use, then the value of that software should be counted at least at the price I’d pay for Windows (or Linux as appropiate) software to do the same thing. On the other hand, if I don’t use that software (or already have a license to a Windows package that’s equivalent to me), its net value is zero.

Other aspects of the Mini need to be factored into the equation as well. Is it worth a little more to have a slot-loading optical drive? Do I place a value on the “pulsing” power light and similar little touches? Is UNIX compatibility important to me? And so on. Some of these things (like that pulsing power light) are difficult to place a specific monetary value on .

But there situations where, without question, there is an “Apple Tax”. Consider a lifelong Windows user who decides to switch over to the Mac and ditch the PC in the process. In this situation, the user plans to switch completely, and terminate all use of Windows and its applications (i.e., no Parallels, Boot Camp, etc.). The user probably relies on certain software, such as Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, or Nero Burning ROM. The user will need the same, or very comparable, software on the Mac. Thus, the price of Mac OS X licenses for Office, Creative Suite, and a CD/DVD burning application should be considered part of the equation. (I know there are free applications that do similar functions, but let’s assume these aren’t suitable for this particular user because they weren’t suitable on Windows, either.) The cost of switching to a Mac, now, is substantially higher than switching to another PC. Not only does the user have to pay more for the Mac than a standard PC, but the user also has to shell out cash for software that probably would not be necessary for a new PC.

Similarly, there are situations with zero “Apple Tax”. If those little Mac “touches” above are worth something to me and I don’t need to buy any new software or peripherals to switch to the Mac, then the “Apple Tax” is essentially zero. I’m getting something for any extra money I’m paying and I’m not losing anything I care about.

By the same token, there is a “Microsoft Tax” associated with switching from the Mac to Windows, and even a “Linux Tax” associated with going from the Mac to Linux… or not, depending on your personal values, needs, and situation. I think it’s fair for Microsoft to talk about an “Apple Tax” because there is validity to the concept, but it’s equally fair to realize that switches in the other direction have a “tax” on them as well.

Even switching from one Windows PC to another can include a “tax” of sorts. For example, if I switch from a Windows 98 PC to a Windows Vista PC, it’s likely that at least some of my software isn’t going to work. (I personally am surprised at just how much of the older software still works, but not all of it does.) Thus, this software becomes a “tax” associated with the new machine. And if you don’t build your own PCs as I do (and technically even if you do), Microsoft has tried to tie the OS license to the physical hardware, meaning you’re supposed to buy a new license anytime you get a “new” PC. (Though what constitutes a “new” PC is a point for debate… If I keep the same case and some of the components, is that a “new” PC or merely an “upgrade”? If I move all the components to a new case, is that a “new” PC?)

For me personally, a switch from a PC to the Mac entails a level of “Apple Tax” I am unwilling to bear. Having switched from the Mac in the late 1990s, I’ve come to love the fact that I can replace just a few parts of my PC each year at a relatively low cost, and still be using the latest (or near-latest) technology. I may spend $200-600 to do an upgrade, in the process getting a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM that effectively make the existing box as fast as a brand-new off-the-shelf machine. If I decide to scrap the entire system and start over, my typical budget is in the $1200 range. For that price, a Mac Pro is way out of my league, leaving me with a MacBook, iMac, or Mac Mini as options. The MacBook isn’t very upgradeable compared to a desktop PC, so I’d rule that out. The iMac and Mini are also “minimally upgradeable” by my definition. (For example, I can’t go buy a new off-the-shelf motherboard and CPU to drop in the iMac or Mini’s case to bump up the speed like I can for a typical PC.) The Mac Pro would mean doubling or tripling my initial budget (though I might be able to put off an upgrade longer with it), and still isn’t quite as upgradeable as the PC. And for me, Apple’s little touches like the slot-loading optical drive, pulsing power light, case designs, etc., carry little to no value. None of this even addresses software or peripherals, some or all of which I’d need to replace. Thus, for me, the “Apple Tax” is too unbearably high and not justified by any difference in “build quality”, style, or other features. The PCs I build all contain carefully-chosen and high-quality parts, so I don’t see a Mac’s build as superior at all. Your situation, however, is probably different from mine. Thus, your “tax” could be lower (or higher).

When I considered my recent Mac Mini purchase, I thought about it a lot. I use Windows probably 95% of the time and Linux the rest. In 11 years, I haven’t needed a Mac for anything other than the work I’ve done on this site, and until very recently I could get what I needed for that from a Mac at work. (When my job responsibilities changed in 2006, I no longer had as much access to Macs.) In the end, I weighed the factors involved and came to the conclusion that the $250 out of pocket was justified by the material I’d gain for this site during the Mini’s lifetime. The Mini’s lack of upgrade options was of minimal importance as it would not be a machine I used a majority of the time. I’d still have and use my Windows PCs, so there’d be little to no software “tax”. I could use my existing keyboard, mouse, monitor, and KVM switch. In short, there was little loss and a decent potential gain, so I bought it.

On February 25, 2009, OSnews’ Thom Holwerda posted “Ballmer: Linux Bigger Competitor than Apple“. It’s an interesting piece from a few points of view. In Holwerda’s post, a slide from a presentation given by Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer shows that Microsoft’s biggest competitor to Windows is “unlicensed” or “pirated” copies of Windows, followed by Linux, then Apple.

As OSnews tells the story, “As much as I find Ballmer a rather annoying figure, he does score a major point here. About 300 million PCs were shipped worldwide in 2008. Round and about 9-10 million of those were Macs. Apple’s market share might be increasing, but it’s still relatively irrelevant compared to the bigger picture. As we said yesterday, Apple might be doing swell in the United States, but on a worldwide scale, Cupertino still falls a bit to the wayside. In any case, it appears that Linux (and piracy) is a larger blip on Microsoft’s radar than Apple, and it’s not hard to see why. With an economy that’s not doing very well, people will opt for cheaper products. Apple cannot offer those, but Linux and piracy can.” (Emphasis added by The Mac Sucks.)

We recently covered how CNET blogger Matt Asay, an admitted Mac fan, thought that just the opposite was true… that people would increasingly seek out the Mac because it represents a value in excess of its sticker price. The statistics presented in the OSnews article by Microsoft would indicate that people don’t seem to agree with Asay’s point of view. In spite of the economic climate we’ve been living in for a while now, Microsoft’s biggest threats are pirated copies of Windows (i.e., a “free” OS) and Linux (another free OS) – and not the Mac. It seems that “free” is more desirable in bad economic times when people have less disposable income. Go figure.

I will readily acknowledge, however, that Ballmer’s words and Microsoft’s actions are somewhat incongruous. On the one hand, Ballmer says Apple isn’t really a threat because they’re only a tiny part of the overall personal computer market. At the same time, Microsoft is launching a number of initiatives that are clearly an effort to replicate Apple’s business models: the Zune to compete with the iPod, the Zune Marketplace to battle the iTunes Store, and Microsoft Stores similar to Apple Stores. (Admittedly, not one of these is really a direct aim at the Macintosh or OS X, so Microsoft is at least somewhat consistent.) Will Microsoft be successful with any of its Apple-like efforts? I don’t know, but if you look at the articles linked in that earlier sentence it’s clear that people are finding things to like about Microsoft’s offerings.

It reminds me of the cola wars. Coke practically owned the soft drink market, but they tinkered with their formula to compete with Pepsi, a smaller competitor in terms of market share. Today, the phrase “New Coke” is often used as a derogatory term to refer to business disasters. In the cola wars, Coke eventually went back to the original formula that made it successful. One wonders if Microsoft will someday do the same thing. Maybe Vista was Microsoft’s “New Coke” and Windows 7 will take them back to a winning formula?

If you look at Microsoft’s history, it’s clear that they are serious competitors in the long term. Initial versions of Windows paled in comparison to the Macintosh of the day, but Microsoft gradually improved the operating system to the point that it (and Apple’s mis-management) nearly eliminated Apple from the market in the mid-to-late 1990s. Even with Apple’s sales growth of late, Microsoft is still the 600-pound gorilla in the personal computer OS market. The early Zunes met with a lot of derision, but more-recent reviews are comparing it very favorably with the iPod Classic. Even the XBox 360, which (like the Sony Playstation 3) has been beaten by the Nintendo Wii, still garners a fair amount of praise from developers and players when compared with the Playstation 3 from former market leader Sony. All of these indicate that while Microsoft may enter the market in a fairly weak position, its products slowly but steadily reach a point where they become “good enough” to be serious contenders for market leadership.

Perhaps that’s why Linux is a bigger threat to Microsoft than Apple. While Microsoft could always turn a battle with Apple into a price war, that’s not the case with Linux. Linux will run on older (i.e., much cheaper) hardware and cost nothing to install, compared to Windows, which will need relatively current hardware and of course a license fee (i.e., “not free”). In a tough economic climate, it will be increasingly difficult for Microsoft to convince customers to invest in new licenses and new hardware when there’s a free alternative that requires no new hardware and offers a lot of comparable software at no charge.

As reported on ChannelWeb and elsewhere, Microsoft has announced a program called “Elevate America” with which it plans to help train millions of Americans in Information Technology subjects. The program includes both web-based and classroom training. This has to be welcome news to some of the millions of people who have been let go or laid off due to the poor economy.

The Seattle Tech Report web site posted a 2003 email from Bill Gates to a number of Windows developers, in which Gates rants about his frustrations downloading Windows Movie Maker from Microsoft’s site to his PC. It’s clear in the email that Gates is frustrated with what he perceived to be a decreasing usability in Windows and Windows applications. Here’s an example of what he had to say in the email:

“…after more than an hour of craziness and making my programs list garbage and being scared and seeing that Microsoft.com is a terrible website I haven’t run Moviemaker and I haven’t got the plus package.”

I think the email is interesting from several standpoints. First, it shows that Gates “eats his own dog food” by using Windows and the Microsoft web site. I’m not suggesting that Apple and the Linux developers do any differently, but I get the impression sometimes that people think Microsoft bypasses its own products somehow. Next, it shows that Gates cares about usability, that he wasn’t pleased with the direction things were going back then, and was making an effort to help people make friendlier software. Again, I’m not suggesting Apple and the Linux developers do anything diffferent, I’m just saying that there is a perception by some that Microsoft doesn’t know or care about usability. Maybe it was only Gates who cared in 2003, but I doubt that. The email also showed that as smart as Gates is, he’s very much able to see things from the perspective of a typical PC user, and gets frustrated by the same kinds of things other PC users do. Apple has always done that very well, and I’ve seen evidence lately that the Linux developers are really taking this seriously now, too.

In any case, the email makes for interesting reading, especially if you don’t think of Gates as a human being but as some sort of monster. It shows that he cared about what the customers were going through with Microsoft products and wanted them to be better.

Also interesting is the comment he made to the reported for the Seattle Tech Report: “There’s not a day that I don’t send a piece of e-mail … like that piece of e-mail. That’s my job.” (The article and comment were written before Gates left Microsoft.)

In a rather ironic turn of events, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer attacked Apple’s closed iPhone ecosystem in a plea for openness, saying that “Openness is central because it’s the foundation of choice.” As Slashdot reports, this is interesting given Microsoft’s history of tying certain technologies together (such as Windows and Internet Explorer).

Should Apple open up the iPhone to third-party software and hardware? In some respects, I’ve been making the argument in favor of this for some time. If Apple truly wants to break into the enterprise market in a meaningful way and push Microsoft out, its “closed” system of hardware and software will have to go. Corporations don’t want to lock themselves into proprietary, closed systems and single-source products. This limits their options, makes them dependent on these external companies for survival, and doesn’t give them negotiating room for price and service. Most CIOs are savvy enough to realize that going down such a “proprietary” path in this economic climate is suicidal. They’re not going to do it.

If Apple is content to be primarily a consumer company with little enterprise presence, then they can afford to continue locking the iPhone to AT&T and being the only manufacturer allowed to produce computers to run Mac OS X. If, however, they want to push Microsoft out of the corporate landscapes, they’re going to need partnerships with other hardware makers and cellular carriers to provide corporate customers with the choices they need to “safely” choose an Apple solution.

That’s why I think it’s far more likely that corporations will migrate from Windows to Linux before migrating from Windows to the Mac. They can run Linux on a variety of hardware, choose from a variety of Linux distributions, and in many cases reduce costs. A Windows to Mac migration will likely mean increased hardware costs and fewer options in general. Even if Apple’s claims about security, performance, viruses, etc., hold up over time, the lack of choice and higher up-front cost will make Macs a hard sell in corporate environments.

In his article “Microsoft still has no iPhone answer“, CNET’s Matt Rosoff talks about the recently debuted Windows Mobile 6.5 OS for smartphones. As Rosoff indicates, WM6.5 is supposed to be friendlier than earlier versions of Windows Mobile, and as someone who carries a Windows Mobile phone around, I would say that it is… but I will also admit that’s not saying much. To me, Windows Mobile is pretty much the same OS it was when Palm Pilots were still all the rate. It’s nicer looking, but it’s basically the same.

I believe Microsoft introduced Windows Mobile primarily to compete with the then-market-leader Palm OS. At first, the Windows Mobile devices were larger, more expensive, and less-friendly than Palm’s offerings. Over time, Microsoft improved the operating system and its hardware partners produced devices that were smaller and lighter. Today, it’s more common to see a Windows Mobile device than a Palm device – by far. So, say what you will about Windows Mobile (and I’ll likely agree with you) but Microsoft succeeded in what it set out to do – bury Palm.

Windows Mobile was as successful as it was because Microsoft understands the needs of business customers. Development tools were made available for free for Windows Mobile soon after it was introduced. Those tools allowed corporate customers to port existing apps to the platform using familiar tools and languages. As a result, corporations were only to happy to adopt Windows Mobile as a platform and discard their Palm Pilots.

Because Windows Mobile has, at least until now, been primarily focused on business customers, it is nowhere near as friendly as it should be. If it was, I doubt Apple would have ever bothered to introduce the iPhone. What we’re now seeing in the industry is a clash of philosophies that, in the end, should benefit everyone.

Having to compete with the ease of use of the iPhone, Microsoft will be forced to put more emphasis on the development of Windows Mobile and more effort into making it as friendly as possible. This is good for both corporate and private customers of Windows Mobile devices. Perhaps Microsoft will even adapt its “Surface” computing technology to Windows Mobile, resulting in a more iPhone-like device.

Apple, meanwhile, will be trying to make in-roads into corporations with the iPhone. In order to do this, however, Apple is going to have to re-think a lot of its business practices. It’s going to have to take security more seriously, and provide corporations with a way to centrally manage a fleet of iPhones. Corporations will need ways to delete sensitive data from an iPhone if it’s lost or stolen. They’ll need in-house application portals like the App Store, so that they don’t have to make their sensitive internal applications available “to the world”. And if Apple wants to be truly competitive with Windows Mobile, they’ll have to share product roadmaps with their customers and perhaps even license the iPhone OS to third parties so that businesses have multiple hardware sources.

In the end, we should have a “more serious” iPhone for business and a “more friendly” Windows Mobile phone for consumers (and business).

According to CNET’s Don Reisinger, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made a number of interesting comments about Windows in the enterprise to Computerworld UK. Reportedly, Ballmer claimed that if you deploy XP in a business today, “most people” will ask their boss why they don’t have Vista. He then went on to say that the best way to make employees happy is to deploy Vista as soon as possible.

I doubt that Ballmer’s statement is as much about helping employers make their workers happy as it is about helping Microsoft’s bottom line. Reisinger notes that Vista is installed on less than 10% of the computers in companies in North America and Europe. By comparison, Windows XP is on over 71% of enterprise computers. Ballmer would, of course, like to see that change to a predominantly Vista landscape.

Where I work, we used Windows 98 on laptops and Windows NT on desktops. We skipped Windows 2000 and went directly to Windows XP. It was not a trivial effort, because many applications and drivers needed attention. It was a painful ordeal for IT, but we endured the pain because we believed that XP would eliminate a lot of the troubles we had in our environment.

For example, Windows 98 users were constantly downloading and installing things off the web. Frequently, these little gadgets caused problems. Maybe they just slowed the system down. Maybe they crashed software people needed to do their jobs. Or worse, they could have brought in a virus. Switching from 98 to XP allowed us to lock the environment down, prevent users from shooting themselves in the foot like this, and gain the reliability for which XP is known. Even in hindsight, I believe this was the right move. Switching from NT to XP was less necessary in terms of stability, but allowed us to move to a single operating system at the desktop, which simplified support and allowed us to do a better job taking care of our PC users. In short, although it was painful to migrate from 98/NT to XP, we were able to justify the move through improved control, better security, and less-complex support.

Today, however, we’re pretty much an all Windows XP shop. Vista might improve our security, but then again we haven’t had a virus outbreak or malware attack of any significance since installing XP. So, while Vista might improve our security, we don’t feel especially insecure now. Vista won’t help us consolidate multiple operating systems because we’re already down to one operating system. It won’t help us take any better care of our customers. In short, we’re not feeling any “pain” using XP, so there is a lot a less to justify a migration to Vista than there was to justify the migration to XP in the first place. I suspect many companies are in that same position.

As Reisinger says, “From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense to keep XP for now.” That’s the real hurdle Microsoft faces in getting Vista (or even Windows 7) to become a success story. Until it makes more business sense to install Vista (or Windows 7) than XP, companies are probably going to keep XP in place.

CNET’s Matt Asay found that Microsoft is searching for a new “director of open source strategy, with a focus on the desktop” to “lead Microsoft’s global desktop competitive strategy as it relates to open source competitors”. Asay suggests that since Red Hat is relatively inactive in the desktop space that Microsoft must be focusing mostly on Novell and Ubuntu. Further, he says that “frankly, only Ubuntu is really changing the game around desktop enough for Microsoft to need to staff a position to counter the threat”.

A lot of the feedback I get from Mac fans who visit this site implies that they think Linux is a third-rate operating system, held together with duct tape and bailing wire compared to Mac OS X and Windows. Certainly, with Linux’s roots as a “garage project” by a largely unpaid development force, such a viewpoint is understandable. However, my experience with Ubuntu is that it’s easy to use, stable, secure, and in nearly all cases “just works”. (The only case I’ve found where it didn’t “just work” recently was my Asus Eee PC laptop, and by following a simple online tutorial I was able to fix the things that didn’t work in a matter of about 5 minutes.)

Microsoft definitely has something to fear with respect to Ubuntu and Linux in general. I would equate the security, reliability, ease of use, and overall appearance of a stock Ubuntu install with Microsoft Windows 2000. With some tweaks and additional software, it can look and feel a lot like XP or Vista. (For that matter, it can also be made to look and feel a lot like Mac OS X.) My experience with Ubuntu on most hardware is that it “just works” without any tweaking or tinkering needed. Linux has come a long way from its early days.

When you combine Linux with the WINE software, which provides binary compatibility with the Windows API (a fancy way of saying it lets you run Windows software without having to use a virtual machine or a copy of Windows), then Microsoft has a bit more to fear. While I’m not suggesting that Windows users should all dump their Microsoft licenses and start using Ubuntu and WINE, I would contend that there are many people for whom this would be a very viable and (perhaps most importantly) free option.

And when looking at the wealth of free software available for automatic download and install through Ubuntu, there are many very usable alternatives to Microsoft’s other desktop products. Firefox is certainly a worthy competitor to Internet Explorer (if not a superior one). OpenOffice.org could easily replace Microsoft Works or Microsoft Office for the majority of users I know. VLC is superior to Windows Media Player in many ways. And I could go on. The point is that Linux is a serious competitor to Windows.

In fact, apart from the hardware, Linux is a serious competitor to the Mac OS. Open source projects have done much to duplicate the look and feel of OS X in Linux. There are some packages on Linux that even provide eye candy that is superior to what can be found in Windows or Leopard (e.g., compiz). Like Mac OS X, Linux has a long reputation for being relatively virus-free and secure. Like OS X, Linux is a UNIX-like operating system (yes, I know OS X is an official “UNIX” operating system, which is what makes it “UNIX-like”). And I would venture to guess that the library of free and commercial software for Linux is of a size comparable to the library of software available for OS X. Again, I’m not suggesting that Mac users should all run out and dump their Macs for Linux boxes. But I am saying that if they were willing to invest the time, I think many Mac users could find that their computing needs are very easily satisfied by Linux. (Some obvious exceptions might be people who are heavy into digital video work, DVD authoring, and other high-end media activities.)

Bottom line, I think it’s smart of Microsoft to be looking for someone to help them understand and respond to the threat posted to Windows/Office/IE/etc. by open source software.

It wasn’t that long ago that people talked about “The Microsoft Tax” on PC purchases.  In order to get the best price possible from Microsoft for Windows licenses to sell with their computers, manufacturers like Dell and HP would make exclusive agreements with Microsoft to sell all their PCs with Windows.  At the time, Linux was drawing converts in large numbers, and those people lamented the fact that they couldn’t buy a PC without an OS license attached.  They referred to this as “The Microsoft Tax” because they reasoned that they were paying more for their PCs because they included a Windows license that they were never going to use.  I understand where the Linux folks were coming from. No one wants to pay for something they don’t want, need, or use.

It’s ironic, then, that the company accused of placing a “tax” on the PCs sold by major manufacturers is itself accusing another company of placing a tax on its users.  As reported by CNet’s Ina Fried, Microsoft is suggesting that Macintosh purchasers pay an “Apple Tax” when they switch from Windows to the Mac.

Most Mac users probably react much the way Ina Fried did, suggesting that this is an old argument from Microsoft and that it doesn’t make a lot of sense.  But if you dig a little deeper, there is some merit to what Microsoft is saying.  It boils down to the following points:

• Macintosh list prices tend to be at least a little higher than the prices of Windows PCs with comparable hardware specifications.  That’s not always the case, but it’s common enough.  (I’m not talking about bundled software, fit and finish, or anything more than raw hardware specs and features.)
• Windows users who switch to the Mac will have a learning curve to switch to the “Mac way” of doing things.  For example, retraining their fingers to press Command-C for copy instead of Ctrl-C has a time and frustration cost to it.  I’m not saying this is a huge factor, just that it’s a factor.
• Windows users who switch to the Mac will either have to give up some familiar applications or spend money on a Windows license for their Macs (possibly along with a product like Parallels).  This is not a cost they’d incur staying with Windows or going to a new Windows PC.
• There will be compatibility problems.  While both the Mac and Windows have come a long way since the 1990s in terms of file format compatibility, there can be problems moving files back and forth between Windows and Macintosh (and/or Linux).  These are issues not seen in an all-Mac or all-Windows environment, but since we’re talking about “switchers” here, it’s implied that there will probably be some swapping of files across platforms.  That means there will be some incompatibility as well.  Maybe not a lot, and maybe it won’t take up a lot of time to sort out.  But it’s yet-another cost of switching to a Mac.
• There are fewer peripheral options.  OS X does support a large number of peripherals and devices out of the box.  But new devices are being introduced all the time, and it’s not uncommon for manufacturers to release Windows drivers for those peripherals first.  Linux drivers will likely come later (though not always).  Mac drivers will probably come even later, if at all.  Some technologies, like SLI video, have yet to make it to the Macintosh product line (and perhaps never will).

As with many things, how much of an “Apple Tax” you see after a switch from Windows to Mac OS X will depend a great deal on your preferences, your uses for a computer, your skill level, and other factors. 

If you make only very basic use of a computer (e.g., web browsing, email, and office productivity), you may find that you have no need of a Windows compatibility solution like Parallels.  Thus, that’s not a “tax” for you.  You might have had only older peripherals that you planned to replace anyway and so buying new Mac-specific ones wasn’t an added cost.  And so on.  So not every switcher will see a big “Apple Tax” coming from Windows.  Others, however, will really feel the pain.

So while I don’t completely take Microsoft’s side, I also don’t think they’re “full of it” either.  There are plenty of people for whom a switch to the Mac could be an easy and positive move.  There are also plenty for whom it will be a frustrating, expensive exercise.  And lots of them in the middle somewhere.

If you’re thinking about switching from the Mac to Windows, researching the following factors may help you judge what your personal “pain level” or “Apple Tax” might be:

• How comfortable are you paying Apple’s hardware prices?  If your idea of an expensive PC is $499, you’re going to find that Macs give you a bit of a sticker shock.  While Mac users tend to hold on to their hardware a little longer than PC users, that’s offset a little by a higher up-front price.
• What software do you use most, and is there a Mac equivalent?  In the short term, you can probably run most of the software you want using Boot Camp or parallels.  In the long term, you’re probably going to want to switch to native OS X applications if for no other reason than to simplify your life.  So do some research now and see if you can find all the applications you need for OS X.  If possible, test drive them on a Mac and see if you like them.
• Are you the kind of person who likes to play with the latest-and-greatest technology?  While Apple is sometimes ahead of the curve, perhaps announcing Macs with the latest Intel processor weeks ahead of other companies, there are a number of technologies that Apple holds back on.  For example, they’ve never done SLI video, have yet to release a Mac with Apple-installed Blu-ray drives, built-in media readers, thumbprint scanners, and other technologies.  If that kind of thing will bother you, you might not be the ideal Mac owner.
• Are you a heavy gamer?  Most new games come out first for Windows and later for the Mac (if at all).  If gaming is important to you, you may find the Mac frustrating because you can’t play the latest games on OS X, and many games don’t work well using the Parallels solution.  Your best option in that situation may be Boot Camp, but if you’re going to be booting into Windows very often it may not make sense to have a Mac.
• Do you share files with a lot of other computer users?  What do most of those other people use?  If it’s a Mac, you’ll probably find the document-sharing much less frustrating if you have a Mac as well.  If most of them use PCs, expect to start hearing (and perhaps doing) a lot of grumbling when files that swap back and forth between platforms start to exhibit odd problems.  Maybe you’ll be lucky and it will all “just work” but don’t count on it.  If possible, test it by moving an extra copy of an important document back and forth between platforms.

There are plenty of sites out there to tell you what other reasons or benefits you might get from switching.  Seek out and refer to those as well.  The message here is to do your research and make an informed decision.

I’ve talked a few times about how there’s a kind of “lock-in” between iTunes and the iPod, a lock-in that doesn’t quite exist in players made using Microsoft’s technology.  That’s a bit of a misleading description.  If you buy an iPod, you’re not really prevented from buying content from other sources.  Similarly, if you buy a third-party player, you’re not prevented from buying content from iTunes.  But there is a subtle but effective set of barriers in place to keep iPod customers being iTunes customers, and to keep iPod customers from jumping ship to a third party player.  This might be a little more clear if I bring out a real-world example to illustrate the point, so let’s try that.

First, let’s look at Creative’s Zen media player, which in terms of its basic functionality is comparable to an iPod Nano (i.e., play music, play video, and display photos). Beyond that, I acknowledge that they’re very different.  Here is the list of formats supported by the Zen:

Let’s now compare that with the music and video formats supported by the iPod Nano, which is intended for the same basic function (a flash-based media player):

At first glance, the iPod has a longer, perhaps even superior, list of formats.  In fact, depending on the formats your existing digital content takes, the iPod may support many more of your media files than the Zen (or less).  I won’t argue that point, and it’s not the gist of what I’m getting at anyway.

If you boil the above lists down to the more-significant differences, what you see are:

Nano:
Supports these formats the Zen does not:  AAC protected format, Apple Lossless, AIFF, H.264 video, MPEG-4 video, BMP, GIF, TIFF, Mac format PSD, and PNG.

WMA (protected and unprotected) and WMV9 (protected and unprotected) are used primarily by Windows PCs and music stores other than iTunes.  They’re also used by subscription services like Napster to Go and the Zune Marketplace.  The Zen would be compatible with such services, while the iPod Nano would not, because the Nano does not support WMA or WMV (protected or otherwise).  That’s a “soft” barrier to keeping iPod users from straying to services other than iTunes. (Rhapsody uses a RealAudio format for at least some of its subscription files, which some players don’t support, including the iPod.)

To be fair, there are tools that allow you to remove the protection from locked-down WMA and WMV files.  In some countries, those tools are probably even legal to use.  But under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it’s considered illegal to take steps to remove protection from digital content (in the U.S.A.).  There are some similar laws on the books in other countries, but not all.  Thus, if an iPod owner wanted to use WMA and WMV content, they could download protected WMA/WMV content, use one of the tools available to lift the protection off it, convert it to a format the iPod supports (like MP3), and load it on their device.  But even with some automation, that’s a lot of steps to go through to get something that you could have theoretically bought from the iTunes Store and had it “just work” on the iPod.  That’s what I mean when I say it’s a “soft” barrier to keep iPod owners from straying too far away from iTunes.  Apple certainly doesn’t stop you outright, but between having users potentially breaking the law, adding a conversion step, and the likely resultant loss of quality (converted media files are rarely the same level of quality as the original), it effectively discourages iPod owners from doing so.  If the iPod supported just the unprotected versions of WMA and WMV files, this would be less of a barrier, but it would still be a barrier.

Now, let’s look at the other side of the coin: AAC files.  The unprotected AAC format is an international standard, meaning access to the format isn’t limited to Apple’s control.  Not coincidentally, the Zen supports unprotected AAC format, which gives Zen owners some degree of access to iTunes content.  The “protected” part of the iTunes “protected AAC” format, however, does belong to Apple, and Apple doesn’t license third parties to create players which work with that format.  They’ve stated that doing so could violate their existing agreements with content providers.  That may be true.  They’ve also stated that if they were to license the format, their “trade secrets” could leak out and allow people to find ways to circumvent AAC protection.  That may be true as well.  However, on the Apple web site, they tell users how to burn protected music files to a normal audio CD for playback on CD players.  Files written to CD in this way can be “ripped” from the CDs into another format, like an unprotected MP3, WMA, or AAC file.  If users can do that, more or less with Apple’s blessing, exactly how is AAC providing any real content protection other than stopping direct copying of protected AAC files from one device to another?  It certainly won’t stop users who have converted AACs to MP3s from sharing those MP3s with the world if they choose, so its protection of providers’ content is limited at best and illusionary at worst.  Regardless of its reasons or motives, Apple’s FairPlay DRM technology used for the protected AAC files becomes another “soft” barrier tying iPods to iTunes.  How?

Let’s say you have owned iPods for 3-4 years.  You’ve probably been getting a lot of your music from iTunes because it’s easier than fiddling around with deprotecting and converting WMA and WMV files from other services, and protects you from any legal liability there might be in your country for doing so.  So you’ve amassed a decent-sized library of music and video that you’ve invested in and will likely want to use with any player you have.  Let’s say you decide to invest in the Zen we’ve referred to here because it’s cheaper than the iPod Nano and iPod Touch, and has a higher capacity than the Nano currently offers (as of this writing).  What happens next?

First, you try to copy over some of your older protected AAC files, only to find that they don’t work with the Zen.  Your options are to buy the unprotected AAC files or MP3 files from iTunes, or to deprotect the protected files (in possible violation of the law).   Still, all this conversion is going to take you some time, especially if you have lots of files.  If you opt to stay legal, it’s probably going to cost you a decent amount of money to buy the unprotected versions of those files (if indeed you can).  Suddenly, any price advantage of the Creative player decreases.  The “hassle factor” increases.  Possibly, the quality of the files themselves even decreases due to conversion.  None of this is necessarily going to make you happy or improve your “overall experience” with the Zen compared to the iPod.  It doesn’t at all “stop” you from making the move, it just makes the move more of a hassle and perhaps a little bit of a disappointment.  You think to yourself, “if I’d bought an Apple player, I wouldn’t be doing all this conversion crap.”  Without actually doing anything, Apple has just made you think twice about keeping the Zen, and consider going back to an iPod.  It’s a subtle message, to be sure.

Second, if you decide to stick with iTunes as your content provider for the Zen, you’re going to be paying a little more for the unprotected files (if you want to save the conversion time) or converting the content you buy into a format the Zen supports (spending some of your time converting the things you buy into a form you can use).  Again, there’s probably a little voice inside you going “if I had bought an iPod I wouldn’t have to do this.”  Maybe that’s enough to make you dump iTunes as a source.  Maybe not.  After all, you’ve probably spent a good bit of time getting all that media organized around iTunes, time that may be wasted if you drop iTunes for some other package. You’re probably more likely to dump the Zen, having more invested in the content than the player.

Thus, Apple’s choice to hold tightly to FairPlay and to charge more for unprotected content does three things.  One, it makes the use of iTunes with third party players potentially more of a nuisance, giving iPods a mindshare advantage because they seem “easier” by comparison.  Two, it ensures that Apple benefits if you do switch away from the iPod, because it means you’ll be paying a little more (most likely) to get your content on an non-Apple device (thus negating a potential price difference) and possibly paying a fee for some of it to get unprotected versions of the media.  Three, it sends a subtle (but largely inaccurate) message that non-Apple players are something of a pain to work with.  It may send the potentially misleading message that content is “cheaper” for the iPod (since Apple charges more for unprotected tracks).  All of this subliminally encourages a “switcher” to come back to an iPod.  It isn’t a lock-in, in the truest sense.  It isn’t a brick-wall barrier.  It’s more a hidden message that iTunes and the iPod are “better” than the alternatives, or at least “easier” and “more compatible”.

Let’s flip things around now and look at another subtle form of “locking-in”.  Let’s say you don’t get rid of your iPod Nano (and buy something else), but that you read about a subscription service like Rhapsody, Napster to Go, or Zune Marketplace.  The first thing you’ll find is that the subscription files all use a protected form of WMA, WMV, or Real Audio, none of which is supported by the iPod.  Now you have a couple of options.  You could ditch the iPod and buy a third-party player the service supports.  (Note, per the above, how there’s a hurdle there from your existing content.)  You could also opt to instead use some kind of software tool to remove the protection from the WMA, WMV, or Real Audio files.  As noted earlier, doing this may very well put you in violation of the law, depending on your country’s rules.  Even if it’s legal in your country, what you’ll now have is an unprotected WMA or WMV file in some cases, and/or a potentially time-consuming wait to convert each into an MP3 or other iPod supported format.  Over time, you’re probably going to tire of all this conversion.  You may lament the likely loss of audio or video quality.  As before, Apple hasn’t really “stopped” you from leaving iTunes behind at all, nor has it “forced” you to use only iTunes.  You could in theory use a service like Napster to Go with the iPod.  It’s just going to be a bit of a nuisance since the iPod doesn’t natively support the format.  If you’re an average or novice computer user, it may be a very big nuisance compared to just buying the same content through iTunes.  Again, the subliminal messages are that iTunes is “easier”, the content may appear “better” in quality, and it’s possibly “cheaper” compared to the time, effort, and complexity associated with deprotecting and converting WMA and WMV content to something an iPod can work with.

It doesn’t have to be this way, though.  From what I understand, the chipsets used in the iPod (at least some older models) actually contain WMA and/or WMV support, but Apple chooses not to use it.  I’m pretty confident that if Apple approached Microsoft and appeared interested in licensing their DRM for use in the iPod that Microsoft would jump at the chance. After all, the Zune hasn’t captured that big of a share of the market (at least not yet), and the possibility of making a few cents (or dollars) off each iPod sold would have to be worth looking at.  Apple says a subscription model is of no value to it at this time and hasn’t implemented one in iTunes.  If that’s true, why not let the third parties sell subscriptions to iPod owners in Microsoft formats?  If Apple is right and a subscription model is something customers aren’t interested in, then it shouldn’t in theory lose anything on the deal, and it should be able to give this a positive spin in its advertising as an added feature and a way to help people “switch” from competing players and services.  After all, just as people who have used iPods for a long time probably have a decent-sized library of AAC files, people who use non-iPod players may see their WMA/WMV files as a barrier against switching to the iPod.

So, when I say that the iPod locks users into iTunes, I don’t mean that you literally have no choice for content other than iTunes.  You can buy and rip CDs to MP3s.  You can download WMA and WMV content from alternate services and convert it to something the iPod can use, if you want to invest in the tools and techniques for doing so (and aren’t worried about violating the law). But by not including WMA/WMV support in the iPod, and by not licensing third parties to support FairPlay protected AACs, Apple sets up some hurdles that make the iPod/iTunes combination appear to be your best option (especially if you’ve already owned an iPod).  And that’s a subtle, but (judging from market share) effective lock-in strategy.  Combine that with the fact that “iPod” has almost become a generic term for “media player” and it’s a powerful bit of marketing. 

In case you’re wondering, I didn’t just hand-pick the Creative Zen as an example.  The Microsoft Zune supports WMA, MP3, AAC (unprotected), and WMA lossless files, as well as JPEG images.  It also supports WMV video, MPEG-4 video, H.264 video, and a format called DVR-MS video.  Even though Microsoft is positioning the Zune to compete with the iPod, they haven’t locked it into the Zune Marketplace, at least not as tightly as Apple locks the iPod to iTunes.  I haven’t tested the theory, but I suspect that non-Microsoft media players that support WMA and WMV protected formats will work just fine with the Zune Marketplace or any of the other services based on Microsoft’s DRM, and the Zune should work with the other services that offer protected WMA/WMV files. While that’s hardly “wide open” support, since it’s limited to non-DRM and Microsoft-DRM files only, it’s certainly “more open” than the iPod/iTunes combination (because, without conversion, you can also buy unprotected iTunes content for a Zune).  If you own a Zune, in theory at least, you should be able to switch to another WMA/WMV capable player and have your protected content work with it.  You should also be able to switch services with impunity, or use multiple services.  The same with players from Sansa, Sony, iRiver, or any of the other manufacturers.  That may not be a completely open system but it’s certainly less “locked in” than the iPod and iTunes combination, which works smoothly together but plays “less well” with other combinations.

Naturally, users of iPods or WMA-based players can use MP3 based services like Amazon’s MP3 service, since there is no DRM involved.  If a user bought only content purchased from an MP3-based service (or DRM-free content from any other service), then switching between iPod and non-iPod would be a (relatively) trivial matter since at least the content would work or be legally convertible.  That’s a much more open option than either the Zune or the iPod with its “recommended” service.

According to Slashdot, Microsoft and Novell have cooperated to bring the Silverlight technology to Linux. As a result, PCs running Linux should be able to view sites that use Microsoft’s Silverlight technology. The Linux runtime library for Silverlight is called “Moonlight” and is expected to be released within the next few days. A few version is already in the works.

Since this site IS about platform neutrality, it’s appropriate that I share some bad (and good) experiences with Microsoft Windows Vista with you…

Tuesday evening, I fired up my Windows Vista PC to play some music for me while I worked with the Mac that’s part of my “Adventures in Mac-Land” project.  (That made more sense to me than copying the music over to the Mac to play it, since the Mac’s not mine.)  I noticed that Windows was complaining that it had updates for me to apply.  It has been a very long time since I rebooted that machine, so I decided to go ahead and apply the updates.  The system rebooted, I logged in, plugged in a USB flash drive to get a couple of files off it, and received yet-another prompt about updates that needed to be applied.  (Like I said, it had been a long time since I’d last rebooted the thing.)

I applied this last round of updates, updated the antivirus definitions, and rebooted.  Vista complained that it couldn’t find one of the files it needed to boot properly, and stopped dead.  Thinking it might be just an aberration, I hit the reset switch.  No good.  I booted from the installation DVD and tried the repair function, which also didn’t resolve the problem.

I copied the files I cared about from the boot disk to another drive (I’ve got about 8 drives in the machine, so that was no big deal) and reformatted the boot disk.  I ran the Vista installer to get the 64-bit version of the OS loaded (where previously I’d installed the 32-bit version for compatibility with an older RAID card).  At the end of the installation, it rebooted and gave me the same error it had earlier.  I was not, as you could imagine, terribly amused.

At this point, I remembered something that hasn’t dawned on me in a long time… The BIOS on my PC’s motherboard has a built-in limitation that extends from a built-in feature.  The machine can be booted from a CD, an IDE boot disk, a SATA disk, a floppy, or a USB drive.  Which one it tries to boot from depends on what you’ve selected in the BIOS.  Unfortunately, the BIOS seems to have only a limited number of “spaces” to keep track of the “potentially bootable” disks.  When it finds more disks than it has room for, it appears to “bump” some of the disks out of the boot list in favor of the disks it finds later in the process.  

Thus, when I plugged in that USB drive to copy files off it earlier, I gave it “one too many” potentially-bootable devices to look at.  As a result, it bumped my actual boot disk off the list in favor of the recently-inserted USB drive.  That meant Vista was looking in the wrong place for its boot files, and subsequently not finding them.  When I removed the USB drive from the hub and rebooted, the machine came up normally (since the BIOS boot order list was now what it should be).  That little bit of “user error” meant that I had wiped and reinstalled Windows Vista without actually needing to do so.

Although I won’t deny that it’s a real pain in the backside to download and install the 64-bit drivers, reinstall my applications, reconfigure my preferences, etc., there’s been a good side to all this.  It may be my imagination, but the 64-bit version of Vista feels a LOT snappier than the 32-bit version did on my hardware.  Applications are launching quickly, windows and menus snap open instantly, and it just feels faster.  Of course, some of that could be due to the reinstallation itself, which essentially cleans up the Registry, reorganizes the files on the disk, etc.  So I’m almost glad I forgot to remove that USB drive when I rebooted.   (While I do NOT blame this problem on Windows Vista, as it’s a hardware/firmware limitation, it does suck that the BIOS manufacturer didn’t foresee the potential problem and build in safeguards.)

If nothing else, it’s at least a “learning experience” (said with some sarcasm).

According to Computerworld’s Gregg Keizer, internal emails from Microsoft that were released as part of the “Vista Capable” lawsuit that’s underway showed Microsoft “feared” a Mac versus Vista comparison back in 2005.  This claim is based on what was said in a Wall Street Journal column by Walter Mossberg.  In the column, Mossberg suggested that if you were thinking about what computer to buy for Vista, you should buy a Mac instead.  Mossberg’s argument was that OS X Tiger (the then-available release) contained much of what Vista was reportedly going to have, and was more secure than Windows XP.  

Based on what is quoted in the Computerworld article, I think it’s a little bit of a stretch to say that Microsoft “feared” comparisons between Tiger and Vista.  They were, however, understandably concerned that a columnist for a well-known and well-respected publication (the Wall Street Journal) was suggesting that a Mac was a better product than a Windows Vista PC (at a time when you couldn’t BUY a Windows Vista PC to compare it to).  If a New York Times writer published a story blasting OS X, suggesting that Mac users should switch to Windows or Linux, I’d expect similar emails to fly around Cupertino as Apple executives questioned one another on how the writer reached that conclusion.  Would I look at those emails and say Apple “feared” Linux or Windows? No. I would if the context indicated they did, but I don’t see that kind of indication in the Microsoft quotes presented.  (Perhaps elsewhere in the emails there IS an indication of fear, but Keizer didn’t provide any quotes that imply fear to me.  All I see are executives attempting to sort out how to deal with negative, and from their perspective untrue, comments about their product.)

Much of the ensuing Microsoft conversation is about how they need to communicate the value of Vista to consumers so that articles like Mossberg’s aren’t given undue credence by readers.  For example, the emails indicate that Microsoft saw one of the values of Vista being that it can “run on a very wide-ranging set of systems from the minimally capable to the incredibly capable. Apple doesn’t do that.”  As I interpret the comment, they’re right.  Apple has always positioned the Mac as a “premium” offering, perhaps to justify premium pricing.  They generally don’t try to do low-end computers.  (Even the Mac Mini, Apple’s lowest-end machine, isn’t exactly “Wal-Mart PC” priced.)  Windows and Linux, by comparison, do support a wider range of hardware (not just brands and makes/models, but chronologically older hardware).  Whether that’s a good or bad thing depends on your perspective.

Microsoft wouldn’t enjoy the market dominance it does if it ignored alternatives to Windows, and didn’t give thought to how to position itself against them.  I’m sure executives at Microsoft pay close attention to OS X, Linux, and even the “niche” OS players out there.  But being aware of your competition and positioning your product within the market aren’t signs of “fear” any more than Apple’s “Mac vs. PC” ads imply that Apple is scared of Windows.

CNet claims that Microsoft’s Live OneCare anti-malware solution changed the Windows antivirus landscape, generally for the better, by putting the antivirus vendors on their toes and making them develop more comprehensive products at better prices.  Maybe they’re right, I don’t know.

More interesting than this is the news that Microsoft is planning to release a free antivirus, anti-malware product for Windows in 2009.  As CNet claims, this is likely to change the antivirus landscape yet again, since Microsoft’s technology is being compared to the industry’s best. 

I think this is the right move for Microsoft, though it probably screws over those who actually paid for OneCare in the past to some degree.  To be as effective as possible, anti-malware protection really should be coming from the operating system vendor.  The operating system vendor would seem to be in the best position to identify potential weak points and protect them, and to ensure that the operating system integrates well with the anti-malware code.

It will probably also have a further downward effect on pricing for commercial antivirus solutions, which is good for the consumer (though not so good for the vendors).  This, in turn, should help more people deploy effective antivirus software and result in a more-secure “Windows world” overall.

I’m an optimist, I know, but I agree with CNet that this should be a good thing in the end.

ExtremeTech has taken an early look at the graphics in Microsoft Windows 7, which Microsoft is claiming will ship in 2009.  As ExtremeTech reports, “The changes to the graphics landscape you can expect in 7 are not sea changes, but these relatively minor upgrades should provide welcome features and may have a significant impact on consumers.”

Windows 7 will apparently incorporate a new driver model, a new version of DirectX, and offer some graphics performance enhancements.  Games, it’s said, will see a significant performance improvement.  Microsoft will also address annoying screen flashes, scaling problems, and accelerated 2D (as well as 3D) performance.  It will also ship with support for MPEG, DivX, Xvid, MPEG-4, AAC (”though obviously not Apple’s protected stuff from iTunes”), WMV, and WMA.

ExtremeTech concludes their analysis by saying “For graphics enthusiasts and gamers in particular, Windows 7 sounds more and more like a must-have every time we hear something more about it.  We can only hope that, unlike with Vista, we’re not hearing about features a year before release that get cut before the product actually ships.”

While I am curious to see what Windows 7 looks like when it comes out, I sympathize with Microsoft for the beating Vista has taken in the marketplace.  I’ve been using Vista since about a week after its release.  I had trouble the first few months, but that turned out to be due to a defective motherboard and not defects in Vista.  Once I’d replace the board, Vista instantly became stable and reliable.  I haven’t seen a single blue-screen, very few application compatibilities (typically with apps more than 6 years old), no driver headaches, and reasonable performance.  On the other hand, I’m not saying Vista is perfect.  It’s not.  I like the UAC feature as a concept, but it’s a nuisance in practice.  And I think the performance of Windows Explorer in Vista is disappointing at best.  Windows XP, in my opinion, would blow the doors off OS X Tiger when it came to copying large numbers of files.  But based on what I’m seeing at the moment, Leopard blows the doors off Vista when it comes to file copying and browsing.  Even on less-powerful hardware, Leopard seems to be copying files faster (though I’ve not done any actual timing to confirm that). I don’t know what Microsoft “broke” in Vista that has slowed Explorer down so  much, but I hope they fix it.

According to a post on Slashdot, Ubuntu Linux 8.10 outperforms Microsoft Windows Vista on the same hardware. This is especially interesting in light of an article we referenced the other day, where a study showed that Ubuntu has been getting slower with each new release.

An article on ChannelWeb entitled “Ubuntu 8.10 is the Real Deal” says that Ubuntu 8.10 “scores higher than Windows Vista in performance testing, does a better job than Windows in making wireless connectivity easy and, overall, leaves fewer reasons to stick with Windows than any other previous release of Linux… For anyone or any business not tied to Microsoft legacy desktop applications, Ubuntu 8.10 may realistically be considered a smarter choice in many scenarios.”

Ubuntu was said to install more quickly than Vista, scored higher in benchmarks, managed wireless connectivity more easily, and booted slightly faster than Windows Vista on the same hardware. The ChannelWeb article also notes that “Canonical continues to bundle key application software with Ubuntu, including OpenOffice.org, Rhythmbox (music management software that can integrate with MP3 players including iPods), FireFox 3.0, GIMP photo editing software and more.”

If you already own a PC, you might want to take a look at Ubuntu 8.10. It may pleasantly surprise you.

Microsoft corporate vice president of Windows Consumer Product Marketing Brad Brooks is quoted in a CNet news article as saying that there’s a “tax” associated with switching to the Mac that people often don’t think about.

While much of what Brooks has to say is marketing hype (as would be expected for a VP of marketing), he does make a few valid points that switchers would do well to consider.

For example, he points out that technologies like Blu-ray aren’t shipping from Apple yet, while you can get Blu-ray drives in systems from Dell, HP, Sony, etc.  When you go with the Macintosh, you limit some of your hardware options to the subset that Apple chooses to support with OS X.  If cutting-edge hardware excites you, you’re likely to find that Apple is usually a step or two behind Windows and/or Linux.

Brooks talks about how Apple hypes to students that if you buy a Mac you can also run Office, Windows, and Windows applications.  This is, of course, quite true.  What Apple doesn’t make as clear is that you’ll be buying a Windows license at around $200, possibly a Parallels license at $80 or so, and maybe an Office license.  If you’d bought a Windows box to start with, the OS license would be included, Parallels wouldn’t be necessary, and you might even get an Office license in the deal.  Apple also doesn’t talk too much about the complexity of setting up a system to dual-boot with Windows and/or Linux using Boot Camp.  These are costs of switching to Apple hardware.

The mantra of the typical “unapologetic Mac user” is that they are willing to pay a little more for a Mac because they get something that “works out of the box, has few problems, and is super easy to use”.  The last Windows laptop I purchased (an HP DV8000T) met that definition nicely.  It’s still working today, happily running Windows XP and Ubuntu, without a crash, a virus, or a single malware attack.  It even allowed me to install a second internal hard drive so I could back up the system in a manner of minutes by cloning the main hard disk to the secondary one periodically.

But as we say around this site, if you’re getting what you need out of the Mac and you’re not finding that it’s limiting what you want to do with your computer, then you’ve made the right choice and we wish you the best.  If you’re not getting what you need out of your computer, whether it be a Mac, Windows box, or Linux system, you owe it to yourself to look at the other options and really think about what you gain and lose with each.  That’s especially true if you’re willing to pay Brooks’ hypothetical “Apple tax”.  A few more bucks spent up front on a Windows PC can provide a different out-of-the-box experience than a lowest-available-price no-name system provides.  Time invested in learning to properly maintain a Windows or Linux PC can prevent the need to ever pay the Apple tax.  But that’s probably a subject for another day…

Microsoft has the reputation for being big, old, and stodgy, but they actually do a lot of very cutting-edge thinking that we rarely hear about. As reported on Slashdot, Microsoft has been studying what happens when you set up a data center in a tent outdoors instead of a climate-controlled data center, and has learned that server hardware is more tolerant and resilient than previously thought. A small group of servers ran for seven months without failure, even when water dripped on the rack. This research, it is believed, will help data center managers learn to optimally adjust their cooling and environmental settings for maximum energy savings. Nice bit of work, Microsoft!

We covered the free public release of Microsoft Photosynth last week. As reported by the Seattle Times Newspaper, the Photosynth site was overwhelmed by the number of people interested in trying it out. This just goes to show that Microsoft CAN come up with things that capture the public’s interest and imagination, and that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on “cool” technology.

In a move that probably would shock Mac fanboys but not phase the rest of us, Microsoft has released a new technology on Windows Live and made it available free of charge. Called “Photosynth“, this software allows you to create a navigable 3D scene by taking multiple 2D digital pictures of an area and stitching them together. While Microsoft hasn’t ruled out commercializing the technology, right now it’s available free of charge. This seems to be another step in Microsoft’s initiative to counteract Apple’s ad campaign to make Windows (and Microsoft) seem stodgy and uncreative.