Brad Brooks, Vice President of Windows Consumer Product Marketing used the term ‘Apple tax’ when comparing a purchase of a Windows based machine with an Apple machine. Actually he blurred the line a bit – because he included a Mac running Windows in the ‘Windows based machine’ category. We’re going to exclude that configuration from our discussion below.

Of course, we know Microsoft isn’t allowed to say anything negative about its competitors, because that’s just. not. right. Apple on the other hand can put the boot in and it gets congratulated. It’s an old double standard that’s been well documented over the years.

So, knee-jerk criticism of Brad aside, is he actually right? And surely the answer is a resounding Yes! Using a Mac is always a more expensive process. Don’t get us wrong, there’s plenty to like about Apple products (we’ve used Macs ourselves over the years, and have enjoyed the experience), but don’t go trying to tell us its price or functionally comparable to a Windows setup.

One reason we don’t use a Mac is because it doesn’t run the software we like. Look around, everything is written for Windows XP or Vista. Just getting a half decent game on the Mac is difficult. Yes, we still have problems with some software on Windows 2008 and Vista 64bit, but to be fair, these aren’t aimed at the general consumer.

Brad has a good run down of the various extra costs associated with running a Mac environment, and it’s hard to fault.

The interview by Ina Fried is a great insight into Microsoft’s own perception of Vista in the market place.

Microsoft still dominates the desktop PC market, with something in the order of 90% of desktops (still!).

If Windows dominance diminishes it won’t be over to Apple.

Lately we’ve been hearing that this dominance is going to be  endangered by Cloud computing and the like. This argument has some weight. But that extends out to other vendors to.

Apple is not a huge threat to Windows. If Cloud computing is really a game changer, then it will affect Apple just as much.

Just blame it on Jim Alchin we say. Oh hang on, that’s what they’re doing.

The Vista Capable case is a whole bunch of people complaining that the ‘Windows Vista Capable’ stickers that got stuck on piss-poor performing PCs were misleading, and that Microsoft was aware of the fact but pushed it along anyway.

Our view on it is this: if Microsoft did knowingly promote Vista on boxes that couldn’t really handle it, then they’re fucking idiots. Why make your operating system look shit? Surely you’d want to only have it running on grunty machines that made it look slick and superfast. If they didn’t knowingly promote it then they should have at least made a point of stopping it. We think they fucked up which ever way you look at it.

UPDATE: Oh, and in terms of keeping all the plaintiffs up to date on proceedings, Microsoft plans to contact them via Windows Updates. ROLF!

Unlike Mary-Jo, we don’t think this is confusing at all (to Vista, XP or any other users).

Basically, Microsoft listened to its customer base and responded to feedback. There’s no reason to think this suggests Vista isn’t ready for prime time (as Mary-Jo alludes to) – rather it’s just that Vista isn’t appropriate for some customers at this point in time. Simple.

In a totally unrelated event Steve Ballmer was at the Churchill Club (in Silicon Valley) recently talking about his ‘red dog’ – Project Red Dog that is. Red Dog is basically EC2 for Windows, and is going to be given airtime at PDC in October (here’s Mary-Jo’s notes from April).

He also woffled on about Mobile devices, the threat of Google and how Apple is unlikely to increase market share in the personal computer space because they won’t license their software to others.

Steve rightly worries about Linux in the server space (Especially web servers) with Windows only having 40% of the share.

He has both a red dog and black one on his hands we suggest.

So, take this latest ‘analysis‘ with a grain of salt. In it Microsoft finds that (amazingly!) it aint cheaper to use Linux than it is to use Microsoft (at least over a 5 year time span). Skills shortage is the main reason attributed (p7) with Linux professionals earning 12.5% more than equivalently experienced Microsoft professionals. Mary-Jo has the rundown.

Of course the numbers only apply to large deployments, so don’t go thinking it impacts any home consumer environment.

When it comes to deploying large numbers of computers to emerging markets (ie poor countries who desperately need to be given access to the right tools for internet-izing their people) why you’d want to go for Linux anyway is beyond us, surely you’d want an operating system that has all the cool Aero graphic capabilities.