Circuits: Getting Hung Up on the Apple-Microsoft War

This week, Apple revealed some of the key new features in "Leopard," the 10.5 version of Mac OS X that's scheduled to ship in the spring. Apple and its most die-hard fans wasted no time in comparing it with Microsoft's own imminent new operating system, Windows Vista. One banner at Apple's Developers' Conference said, for example, "Hasta la vista, Vista." Another taunted: "Redmond has a cat, too--a copycat."

Mac fans online are fond of pointing out that in the time it took Microsoft to release *one* new Windows version, Apple has released *five* new Mac OS X versions. (Of course, they're less vocal about the fact that they've dished out $650 to keep up with these updates.)

Apple and many observers also point out that Mac OS X is a *better* operating system than Windows. I'm among them, especially if we're talking about Windows XP. Mac OS X is far more logical in structure and more refined around the edges.

And it's certainly more secure. The Mac is essentially virus- and spyware-free--and no, not just because its market share is so small the virus writers don't bother with it. Mac OS X had security built in from the beginning, in ways that Microsoft didn't add until Windows Vista (like requiring your permission when a program tries to install itself).

What baffles me, though, is why people get so hung up on the Apple-Microsoft war. As far as I can tell, there *is* no real war.

See, I'm fairly resigned to Windows's dominance. If Microsoft changed nothing in Vista but the color scheme, Windows would still be the 90 percent market-share gorilla.

Why? Because the market-share figures includes sales of computers to corporations, which buy hundreds of PC's at a time. And the corporate world long ago standardized on Windows. It makes no difference how superior Mac OS X or Linux may be; the world's I.T. staffs will switch their entire companies away from Windows the day Rush Limbaugh votes for Hillary Clinton.

After all, the I.T. people know where their bread is buttered. If Macs are indeed less trouble-prone and complex than Windows PC's, they're doomed in corporations; the last thing the I.T. guys want to do is obsolete themselves.

The only legitimate fight, therefore, is for the souls of individuals and small business owners who actually have a choice of platform--people whose computer choice is dictated by their corporate employers. But these are just market-share scraps.

Apple does seem to be winning the scraps, by the way; Macs have actually picked up a couple of points of market share recently.

But big companies will always buy Windows. In my view, the die was actually cast the day I.B.M., supplier to corporate America, chose Microsoft decades ago. And when you accept that fact, this business about an Apple-vs.-Microsoft feud for dominance looks purely symbolic.

Maybe it would be best to keep this observation secret, though. The fantasy that the marketplace is actually up for grabs does do two good things: It drives Microsoft to improve Windows, and drives Apple to continue dreaming up new directions for the desktop operating system.

(For example, I had my doubts that Apple could come up with anything in Mac OS X 10.5 with as great an impact as the Spotlight instant-search feature did in 10.4.

But Leopard will include an automatic, invisible, whole-computer backup system called Time Machine. In times of hard-drive failure or human error, it will let you rewind either your operating system or even individual documents and windows to earlier versions. Remember, fewer than five percent of us have automatic backup systems in place, so this is huge. Yes, I know there are certain third-party software programs that do something like this--there always are. But it's quite another matter when it becomes part of the operating system.)

Followers of both camps, in other words, can save themselves a lot of ulcers if they just acknowledge a few facts:

* Microsoft gets a lot of ideas from Apple; Apple also gets ideas from Microsoft. It doesn't matter; the most expensive lawyers in Silicon Valley have established that it's all perfectly legal.

* Microsoft has won the market-share war, because it dominates in corporations.

* Both companies are profitable and have very long futures ahead of them.

* If market share were measured by individual buying decisions (rather than quantity of computers), Apple's rank would be much higher.

* Even if the grand prize for the "war" is individuals, families and small businesses, the perception of a much bigger war is useful; Windows Vista and Mac OS X Leopard may in fact be on completely different playing fields, but they're both looking like the best versions ever.