I have often wondered how anyone can take Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer seriously anymore. Since he took over from Bill Gates in 2000, the company has gone almost nowhere. Sure, profits are great, sales are decent considering the state of the PC industry (other than Apple of course), but pretty much every new initiative has failed, despite pouring billions and billions into them.

It may even be that the company itself doesn’t take Ballmer’s rantings seriously. Just the other day, Microsoft’s corporate spin department was beginning to walk back a Ballmer statement about the possible arrival of Windows 8 in 2012. We were all reminded that the successor to Windows 7 hasn’t even received an official name yet, although Windows 8 is the one developers are using.

Now imagine, just imagine, if Apple’s PR people attempted to backtrack on something Steve Jobs had said. Their positions wouldn’t list five minutes, and that’s stretching it some, assuming it would take that long before Steve actually discovered what they’d done.

So loose lips aren’t necessarily sufficient to sink a CEO, for otherwise the co-leadership at RIM would have been long gone. But you have to look at the misbegotten steps Microsoft has taken in recent years to become relevant. Just recently, they decided to spend (or waste) $8.5 billion to acquire Skype. Now Skype is certainly a standard for Internet-based communications and all, but the company has never been hugely profitable, although sales of some services have improved. Besides, Microsoft already has instant messaging, which includes audio and video, so what they’d be getting with Skype would be a peer-to-peer technology, and the infrastructure to send and receive phone calls from traditional landline and wireless numbers. But is that worth $8.5 billion? What about a simple licensing deal, or, stay with me now, harnessing the power of Microsoft’s alleged innovation and developing such capabilities in house?

Some time back, with sales of Windows Phone 7 smartphones failing to gain traction, except for a few product placements on TV shows, Microsoft made a deal to license the mobile platform to Nokia. This happened only months after Nokia named a CEO who used to work for Microsoft. A stalking horse?

Worse, Nokia handsets won’t receive Windows Phone 7 (or a later version) until 2012, which kind of makes their current latest and greatest mobile gear dead in the water. Besides, you wonder what competing handset makers think of this possible act of desperation, considering that billions of dollars will come Nokia’s way to fund development costs. Well, HTC, a licensee for Microsoft’s mobile platform, claims they will continue to produce such products, but what about next year when Nokia’s new smartphones appear? Would they require a bribe to keep using the OS?

Let’s not forget the Ya-Bing affair, where failing Yahoo! licensed Microsoft’s Bing search technology in return for a wad of cash. Was there anything wrong with Yahoo!’s home-grown capabilities, which predate Google? Was Bing so much better, or was this just a desperate move on the part of both to fight Google?

Indeed, the curious decision to acquire Skype occurred not long after public reports appeared that both Face-book and Google were after that company.

In any case, Google’s search market share remains in the 65% range, give or take a point or so. Pretty much all Microsoft has done was cannibalize Yahoo!’s search share, which seems an embarrassing waste of money. And I haven’t begun to consider that pathetic Bing ad campaign that needs to be sent packing.

Well this week, a prominent hedge fund manager, David Einhorn, president of the Greenlight Capital fund, came out and said that Ballmer represents “the biggest overhang” on Microsoft’s stock, and was forthright in suggesting he leave and “give someone else a chance.” In turn, Microsoft’s stock price increased, which surely means Wall Street has taken notice and agrees with Einhorn.

In passing, Greenlight owns millions of shares of Microsoft stock, although it only amounts to some 0.11 percent of the total. Regardless, Einhorn is quite influential in the financial community, having reportedly predicted the notorious accounting troubles at Lehman Brothers, a large investment bank, before it collapsed in 2008.

So when someone with that stature says it’s time for Ballmer to go, will Microsoft’s board of directors take it seriously? What about former CEO Bill Gates, who these days plays the philanthropy game with huge success? Even though Gates and Ballmer are long-time friends, is that enough to inspire confidence? I would think that, if Gates personally intervened and suggested Ballmer take an early retirement — and it’s not as if he needs the money — maybe he’d do so with the appropriate excuses about spending more time with his family and all.

But the larger question is whether Microsoft has groomed anyone to replace Ballmer now or in the future. Over the years, there has been an exodus of key talent, such as Chief Software Architect, Ray Ozzie, not to mention thousands of employees who were shown the door in a cost-cutting move.

I suppose Microsoft could look outside the company, perhaps finding some seasoned executives out there with an innate understanding of the tech industry in the 21st century, and what strategy Microsoft needs to follow as its core businesses continue to age. Maybe they could poach someone from Apple, although their leadership might have poison pill contracts that would make such a move difficult.

However, as more and more people express disappointment in Ballmer, the real question is whether he’ll take the message and do what’s necessary to save the company, or if the board has the courage to deliver a no-confidence vote.

It’s curious about the phenomenon of synchronicity. As I was writing this column, I got an unsolicited call on my Skype account; the first I might add, and I’ve been a member for several years. Out of curiosity, I answered, only to hear a clumsily recorded robotic male voice warning me of potential security problems on my computer. I promptly hung up, and checked my Skype preferences about blocking unsolicited calls.

Now understand that getting so-called telemarketing calls on regular phones is nothing new, although it might be a novelty on Internet telephone services. Junk phone calls have persisted for years, forcing the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to set up a National Do Not Call Registry. Once your phone numbers are entered into the online database, and it takes just a couple of minutes to register up to three numbers at a time, a business cannot call you unless they have a prior business relationship with you. If they violate the law, they can face severe fines, though I wonder how often that really happens.

But what really got my dander up is that this unsolicited call was using the very same scare tactics that Internet criminals have used for years to attempt to induce you to buy bogus security apps. The tactics are usually the same. You suddenly see a pop-up window in your browser warning you that your computer might be infected with a virus. You can just dismiss the warning and get on with your business, but if you accept the scan, you will be, in short order, notified that you must download and install a special app to remove the malware on your computer. They’ll even sell you a user license, but, in the end, the warning was a fake, and you will be paying for a product that does absolutely nothing — other than to take your money of course. And once they have your credit card number, you are in danger of having that number used for more fraudulent purchases.

Up till now, this phenomenon has been primarily a Windows-based annoyance, with a recent estimate that a whopping one of every 14 Windows-based downloads may represent a bogus app of some sort.

However, Mac users have not been immune to social engineering of this sort. It just took the Internet gangs who engage of this form of thievery to seek out a new audience for their scareware. So very recently, you probably read of this new threat, called MAC Defender, MAC Security, or something similar. The approach is the same. You see a warning that still resembles a Windows prompt, but it appears the actual software is very much in tune with the Mac interface. No doubt, the criminals involved have been boning up on their Xcode skills, so they can create Mac apps that look and behave very much like the real thing, except, of course, that they are useless.

Up till now, Apple hasn’t really paid much attention to the occasional flare ups of Mac OS X malware, since they haven’t been widespread. They will half-heartedly inform you that there are security apps available if you choose to protect yourself. Most of the problems up till now have involved downloading and installing malware-ridden software. But the same people who fool you into installing a bogus security app can also fool you into installing something that literally takes over your computer, and steals your personal information, including passwords, bank account numbers, and other critical data.

Up till now, Macs have resisted such outbreaks partly because of a “security through obscurity” situation, meaning that Apple’s relatively low market share didn’t make it a serious target for malware. Computer virus authors are also highly skilled at creating viruses for the Windows platform. Even though Microsoft has been far more active in fixing security issues on Windows in recent years, loads of people still run PCs with older, unprotected operating systems, thus leaving tens of millions of people vulnerable to virus infections.

In their recent security feature, Consumer Reports spoke of multi-billion dollar losses, although they didn’t state the obvious, that perhaps 100% of those losses were on the Windows platform. I suppose that equation might change a little now, considering that some Mac users are being successfully coerced into buying MAC Defender licenses.

After apparently attempting to ignore the issue for a while, Apple has decided to take a surprisingly forthright approach. They have already posted a Knowledge Base article that describes the extent of the problem, which they classify as “phishing,” and how you can easily remove the offending software and, with a few extra steps, a startup item that causes the app to run each time you reboot your Mac, along with an accompanying background app.

Apple is also promising a forthcoming update for Mac OS X that will protect your Mac from MAC Defender and its variants, which include the latest threat, known as MacGuard. You probably don’t know that Snow Leopard actually has built-in malware protection, but it’s very limited in functionality, and is not regularly updated. By taking this measure, Apple may enter quicksand, as updates to MAC Defender and other Trojan Horses will continue to appear, thus forcing them to issue regular updates. And I haven’t mentioned the standard security updates, issued occasionally, which usually address issues that could cause your Mac to be compromised.

Now I’m not about to suggest you should be installing virus protection software on your Mac, although it probably won’t do any harm, since the better products don’t seriously hog system resources or slow down your computer. But the arrival of MAC Defender may be only the first of many serious threats to appear, so the best advice is just be careful, and practice safe computing. In other words, don’t download any software except from trusted sources, such as the Mac App Store, and responsible third-party developers and software repositories.

When I read that Yahoo! had just completed a major update to its online email system, I suddenly realized that I still had such an account; in fact, I’ve had one for years, although I rarely use it. Maybe that’s because I never regarded it as an essential part of my online communications. It’s not that having a “yahoo.com” appended to one’s user name should convey a feeling of prestige, dismay, or any feeling at all. I suppose the same can be said for “aol.com” these days, although it does appear “gmail.com” still has a semblance of a cachet. A semblance, yes, but not to me.

In any case, Yahoo! announced a major facelift to the venerable email service this week, offering a spiffier interface, generous display of targeted ads, and, naturally, integration with social networks, including Face-book, Twitter, and, surprisingly, even Google.

The most important improvements include doubling the speed of the Web-based client, superior spam filtering and the ability to send attachments of up to 100MB each. That’s a huge deal, because even commercial email systems often limit you to a mere 20MB, which has helped spur the growth of online file transfer services, such as YouSendIt. Not that 100MB is necessarily large in the scheme of things, but any improvement is better than none.

According to published reports, Yahoo! email has 277 million users, while Google has 220 million for the Gmail service that only recently exited the “beta” stage. Microsoft’s spam-ridden Hotmail remains number one with 327 million users, but that’s after shedding eight percent last year. To me, Hotmail, Live Mail, or whatever you wish to call it, remains at the bottom of the list when it comes to free email systems.

The real comparison, however, is between Yahoo! and Gmail, and that’s where the former fails. Yes, Yahoo! is prettier than the workable Gmail interface, though the latter gives you loads of themes with which to customize the basic appearance. Gmail also limits you to attachments of no more than 25MB for the free service.

You can ditch the ads with Gmail if you subscribe to Google Apps, at $50 per user per year. Yahoo! Mail Plus, at $19.99 for the year dismisses “graphical” ads, and also offers offline access via a conventional email client, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

You see, the options offered by the free Gmail are far more extensive. Most important, Gmail supports both POP and IMAP access for offline reading. Yahoo! Mail Plus is limited to POP, with no offline support for the free version.

Now to me IMAP is de rigueur for email systems, because it means that all your messages are stored in the cloud (and cached on your computer). This enables you to switch from one device to another without losing messages, or having to download the same email all over again. This is a pretty significant feature, especially when you consider that most people these days are sharing email accounts on personal computers, smartphones, tablets, and other gear.

So as much as Yahoo! is to be applauded for attempting to deliver an online email service that’s more relevant in the second decade of the 21st century, forcing you to pay extra for offline access, and not offering IMAP at any price, is just a bad move. The other issue is whether it’s worth the bother. Even if you have a legacy account, other email systems, such as Gmail, will let you access your messages from other services.

Besides, if you truly want to personalize your email, you might find it more convenient to get yourself a personal (or vanity) domain, such as <yourname>.com, and set up a cheap hosting account. That’s true even if you don’t intend to create a site.

You see, they all give you email as part of the package. There are also low-cost email packages from the major hosting providers that include decent spam protection, functional online access, and the ability to use your favorite email client on any personal computer, whether it runs the Mac OS, Windows, or even Linux. You won’t get targeted ads, and you won’t be a spam magnet, and, of course, you can use IMAP. Well, amend that. Only the “Unlimited” email plan at GoDaddy offers anything but POP; they remain the ultimate bait and switch experts in the industry.

In saying that, if you must have free, I suppose Gmail is the best of the breed. You can even use it for your personal domain; the setup instructions are found in the free Google Apps Domain Manager, but, again, you’ll want to pay for the full or business service if you want freedom from ads, and, in fact, customer support, more or less. But when it comes to support, Gmail hasn’t a clue, and the same can be said for Yahoo!

For now, I intend to keep my accounts at Yahoo!, Google, Hotmail, and even AOL. Maybe I’m lazy, but it’s probably because I need to write about them from time to time. That is, so long as they remain around to write about.

I suppose when there’s not enough real news, the media will sometimes let loose with some silly speculative pieces with which to start discussions and, of course, get plenty of hits for their sites. In recent days, I read an article that claimed to have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that fans of Apple gear regard the company within something akin to religious reverence.

If this all seems wacky to you, let me tell you that it definitely joins the absurd “Apple is dead” mantra that used to follow the company, until record sales and profits made such speculation seem sillier and sillier. Then again, some people continue to wish and hope for a failure, with the latest targets being the iPhone and the iPad. Somehow, some way, another company is going to beat the pants (or skirts) off Apple; just give it time, since all companies fail. Well, maybe except Microsoft, although Microsoft has had loads of problems in recent years, particularly with their mobile platform, and don’t forget generic PC sales are flagging, which means fewer Windows licenses.

Now understand I am not attacking any religion or religious faith, nor will I dispute the fact that organized religion does meet the needs of billions of people on this planet. Such beliefs, so long as they don’t focus on hate and violence, are to be fully respected.

At the same time, claiming Apple is a religion is a clearcut attempt to separate the many logical advantages of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and of course the Mac, from what some perceive to be the reasons people continue to buy those products. The clear implication is that it’s all hype, and that Apple is strictly appealing to our emotions, or faith in the company and its values, and not the practical needs those products serve.

There is certainly nothing wrong with an emotional appeal, and I certainly believe Apple’s famous “Think Different” TV campaign, emphasizing a visual montage of famous and unique people who inspired us through the years, easily brought a hint of a tear to your eyes upon first viewing. But I hardly think this campaign was sufficient to generate religious fervor for Apple. Not even close.

So why do so many fans of Apple gear become so attached to them? Well, tech gadgets are only one example of customer attachments to non-living things. Consider the family auto. For some, it’s a little more than a transportation appliance, designed to get you from here to there with reasonable safety and comfort. You outfit your vehicle, to the extent your budget allows, with the amenities needed for your particular lifestyle, starting with air conditioning, but extending to fancy radios and navigation systems that not just sound as good or better than most home entertainment systems, but are intended to provide useful guidance to help you get from here to there. But I still prefer roadmaps.

But others personalize their cars, with custom geegaws, added performance accessories, souped up engines, and so on and so forth. My brother-in-law, for example, is extremely attached to his 1994 Porsche 911 Speedster, which he really can’t afford to fix. It needs a major engine overhaul, a new air conditioning system, and the radio went on the fritz long ago. Now as a practical matter, the trade-in value is probably next to nil, even though the body color, a special shade of blue, was only made available on a handful of those cars.

I have told him again and again to just get rid of it, perhaps sell it to a tinkerer who has the wherewithal, and the extra cash, to make it whole again. But he loves that car, and hopes some day to have enough money to restore it to its former glory. Talk about attachment.

Certainly in your city you’ll find people who lovingly restore old cars, take them to shows, or just drive around with special license plates (so they don’t have to pass today’s stringent emission requirements). There may be nothing logical about such a decision, but I understand the emotional attachment. In fact, if my train ever comes in, I’d like a vintage Studebaker Avanti, the classic sporty grand touring car that was actually resurrected by a small company or two over the years before production ended for good.

One of the project managers at AOL used to boast that he had dozens of vintage Macs in and around his home, all in fully functional shape. But hobbies of that sort, as you can see, aren’t limited to products built by Apple Inc.

In short, one’s attachment to a car, a home, a stick of furniture, even a tech gadget of some sort, shouldn’t be regarded as a religion. I do not pretend to understand the psychology behind one’s love of non-living things, but I hardly think you could label it as some sort of religious belief. Besides, it’s fun, and it makes little sense to attack such behavior as something unclean, uncivil, or a symptom of some sort of fanaticism. Such things shouldn’t need a longwinded explanation to just make sense.