Microsoft has a big problem with 3rdy party drivers and apps (eg shitty apps pre-loading at boot-up so they dont look too bad to start (but they slow down WIndows boot and make Microsoft look bad)).

Apple have maintained much more control (like in this SDK case).

Both approaches have pros and cons, but Apple has less backwards compatibility baggage to cart around and a better image.

this year will be interesting I reckon

Compared to mainframe and dial-up tty access to Unix systems, both Microsoft Windows and Apple OS X are much simpler.

Anyway, it’s partially a matter of user expectations and managing them. Microsoft has ITSELF staked its claim to dominance on being the closest thing to a universal OS there is. Too darn bad for Microsoft that that means when they fail to support older but still widely used hardware, they’re castigated for it. Even if Microsoft can’t support all hardware going forward that they’ve supported in any 32-bit version of Windows, there are two obvious solutions: 1) continue to sell older versions of Windows, or 2) be more forthcoming and/or transparent about new version specs. There’s a lawsuit about Vista Capable ‘certification’ that’s arisen from (2).

Apple, on the other hand, has always played down expectations of broad hardware compatibility, and Apple users know better than to expect 18-month-old fax/scanner/printer peripherals would work with the latest & greatest OS X version. And Apple has also managed to avoid the multiple SKU morass Microsoft has made for Vista (in hopes of extracting as much money as possible from customers).

In short, Apple has been much more skillful about managing user expectations. Maybe that’s due in part to their much smaller market share, but it’s also a failure of Microsoft management. One measure of whether that failure was honest or not will be what happens in the Vista Capable lawsuit, but I figure Microsoft will settle in the end without, of course, admitting anything (even to themselves).

Yes, it’s interesting, isn’t it. Apple can do no wrong, and Microsoft can do no right. Deep down, though, I suspect there’s not much difference.

I recently bought an Apple MacBook Pro(use Pcs at work) because of its use of Intel chips,its ability to run Windows program and the advertised performance. I am still learning how to use the Mac and as a longtime, fairly expert PC user, I am certainly not wowed by the “ease of use” for Macs vs PCmode.

The reality is that for corporations that need to do “work” which directly or indirectly provides a livelihood for millions of people, the majority of developers of critical, complicated software (costing $20,000 or more) focus on the MS environment. We are often extremely critical of Microsoft for its $200-500 software and less critical of suppliers of software costing 10 times more. A recent upgrade package for the “fabulous, fantastic” Leopard operating system for my MacBook Pro software had a long list of changes (30?) which would have attracted virulent criticism of MS in blogs, publications and forums.

I’m interested to see if the Feb figs are just a blip caused by the air book or a sustained growth (caused by Vistas perceived crapness?)

I watch Macs with interest as they represent a void of zero Excel/VBA opportunity since Office2008. Unless everyone is dual booting them with Windows I guess.

Will be intresting to see what happen when Jobs does go…

Cheers - Marcus