The other day, in responding to less-than-serious email from me on the subject, an acquaintance reminded me how hundreds of millions of people use Windows around the planet. To his way of thinking, that’s because they preferred that operating system over the Mac OS or Linux.

Well, that may be true in part. But history shows that Microsoft has not dominated a market by building superior products. In large part, they used bait and switch and other deceptive tactics to push their mediocre imitations to customers.

In the early 1990s, for example, when several advanced operating systems were available or being developed, Microsoft said that they were working on their own, Cairo, which would be far superior, so there was no reason to choose an alternative to Windows.

Cairo, however, eventually vanished from Microsoft’s talking points, simply because it was all an illusion. Maybe they did at one time have hopes for such a thing, just as they actually planned to add an advanced file system to Windows Vista. But neither ever saw release. In the case of Vista’s Win FS file system, it appeared in beta versions, but was pulled for further development. No, it won’t be in Windows 7 either.

Story continued in this week’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter.

All right, you know that Apple has been urged repeatedly to jump into the burgeoning netbook market as quickly as it can. These trimmer, slimmer note-book-style computers are supposedly the only real profit center for PC makers during the economic downturn.

Unfortunately, when you charge a “mere” $300 or $400 for a note-book computer, regardless of what you call it, potential profits are slim. The only possible way to make decent money is to sell boatloads of them. Or, perhaps, add customization options to let you create the one you want with lots of add-ons, which, of course, means extra money for the PC makers to take to the bank.

Now there are several considerations about netbooks that aren’t getting so much coverage. It’s all mostly how well they are doing, which models and features are available, and whether Apple is ready to release their own entry into this relatively new market segment.

One thing not often mentioned is just what a netbook is good for. Now consider taking a low-powered chip, such as Intel’s new Atom processor, integrated graphics, a tiny hard drive along with a crowded keyboard and small screen and you get what is essentially a smaller version of a regular note-book. In fact, many of these models come across in exactly that way.

They are largely intended for email, Web surfing and perhaps light word processing. Indeed, to save money, many of the entrants into this market use Linux rather than Windows XP (Vista is just too bloated to work efficiently). While Linux may not seem so suitable for a desktop PC, actually it can work fairly well within a carefully controlled environment. Certainly a browser such as Firefox can be used successfully, since it has an interface very close to that of the Windows version. Email can be retrieved online from most ISPs, and Google Apps may be sufficient for light word processing. Or just use a free alternative to Microsoft’s suite, such as Open Office.

Indeed, as we previously reported, HP is considering whether Google’s open source smartphone operating system, Android, might be suitable for a netbook if given the appropriate modifications. Microsoft, in the meantime, is claiming (and no doubt hoping) that the forthcoming Windows 7 will be suitable as well. That remains to be seen.

In any case, as PC makers are gearing up their new generation netbooks, they are obviously trying to move these product upscale. You’ll be able to choose from larger screens and, by clicking off a few options in the customize pages, outfit them really close to a regular note-book. Indeed, the actual difference is apt to blur as the prices of the two get closer and closer.

That’s, of course, what the PC makers want. Indeed, you wonder if the netbook might to some extent be a placeholder product to grab sales during an economic downturn. Perhaps they are hoping against hope that, once people can afford something better, they’ll abandon netbooks like the plague and buy more profitable gear. Does that come close to bait and switch? Not necessarily, but you can see what I’m getting at.

On the other hand, just making more expensive netbooks would be more than sufficient, since whatever sells is just fine for any of these companies. Of course, Apple might be more demanding, but in the end, if netbooks continued to gain traction, you can bet they will get involved.

Understand, gentle reader, that the closest thing to a netbook that I’m apt to use is the iPhone. To me, the larger the screen the better for extended computing, and I don’t like restricted keyboards, at least physical ones, although I continue to tolerate the touch version on my iPhone 3G.

The real danger to the PC makers, however, is that large numbers of customers may decide they don’t need a full-sized note-book PC, now or ever. The more limited functions of the netbook are more than sufficient to satisfy their needs. I can tell you that I know a fair number of people that do fit into this category, and if there was a Mac netbook or a grown-up iPhone, they would be highly likely to acquire one to serve as their sole computing device.

This may be a reason why Apple won’t mix Macs and netbooks, and keep them totally separate. As you may recall, both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have already stated on more than one occasion that they regard the iPhone line as Apple’s netbook, at least for now.

Regardless of where the netbook market takes us, it would be nice to see one that truly advances technology. Today’s netbooks are largely shrunken note-books, and little more. I suppose we’ll have to wait, yet again, for Apple to define the state of the art; that is, if it needs any defining, and that remains an open question.

In the old days, they used to call it pork barrel spending, where a member of the U.S. Congress would get funding for a local pet project to demonstrate his or her ability to help local constituents. And, of course, get reelected. One of the worst offenses involved the so-called “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, where hundreds of millions of dollars were dedicated to build a bridge to Gravina Island, which has a small airport and just 50 residents.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the project, known as the Gravina Island Bridge, became a political football, symptomatic of what have come to be called “earmarks,” federal funds allocated for local projects that may, depending on your perspective of course, have questionable value.

In recent weeks, the right-leaning Fox News cable network began to run stories about silly projects of this sort in order to demonstrate how taxpayer dollars were being wasted. In retrospect, though, it seems strange they only began this practice after a member of the “other” political party became president. It’s not as if earmarks are anything new.

In any case, it now appears that Microsoft is immersed in a similar scandal, involving a plan to spend $11 million of stimulus money to help fund construction of a bridge that’ll connect two campuses at Microsoft’s corporate headquarters in Redmond, WA. Proponents of this project point out that hundreds of construction workers will get jobs as a result, at least until the bridge is finished.

But think about this for a moment. Microsoft has billions of dollars in the bank, and they are saving millions more as the result their recent decision to shed some 5,000 workers. True, they are paying a portion of the bill for building this bridge. But whether or not they should have paid the full tab has become a contentious issue, since they will gain most of the benefit from this project. What it means, in short, is that many Microsoft workers will get to their jobs far more quickly.

What is most troubling, however, is that a nearby structure, Seattle’s aging South Park Bridge, is apparently not being considered for repair or replacement under the stimulus plan or otherwise, and it is said to be in worse condition than the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge in Minneapolis, which collapsed in 2007.

I am not necessarily suggested that a city shouldn’t treat its major employers well. Indeed, many localities have given huge tax benefits to attract large firms. However, it’s not as if Microsoft suddenly plans to abandon its corporate headquarters in a hissy fit if they were forced to write a larger check. So should the politicians who are responsible for this project be encouraged by local citizens to just send the bill to Microsoft and be done with it?

For those of you that don’t feel warm and fuzzy about Microsoft, I suppose that seems sensible. It’s also true that Microsoft provides steady employment for tens of thousands of local residents, and perhaps they do deserve a few incentives as a result, particularly if they’re sharing in the expense.

On the other hand, asking U.S. residents from around the country to contribute to this project as part of their income tax bills is something else altogether. Are Redmond’s financials so dismal that they can’t afford to raise the money themselves somehow, or simply convince Microsoft to shoulder more of the burden? Consider, for example, the interests people who prefer to use products from Apple and other tech companies. Even if $11 million represents only a small portion of the incomes of even more wealthy taxpayers, such as Steve Jobs, why should they be forced to cover this expense, based on the fact that this and numerous other earmarks were attached to the sprawling stimulus package?

However, despite the lurid headlines, I doubt that anyone is going to be able to alter the financial breakdown and convince Steve Ballmer to authorize a larger expenditure. Besides, there are worse abuses of federal money, such as one project involving construction of a pathway for salamanders. While I do approve of saving the lives of various and sundry lifeforms on our planet, that might just be a bit too much.

Then again, this is Microsoft, and sending a little abuse their way seems like a good idea. What do you think?

I’m sure many of you won’t be surprised to learn that there’s a growing perception that Steve Jobs will never return to Apple, at least to his full-time job. The best compromise appears to be that he’ll select someone to be permanent CEO, perhaps acting CEO Tim Cook, and that Jobs will assume some sort of supreme advisory role to set the company’s product direction and marketing strategy.

That might sound somewhat like the role that Bill Gates played at Microsoft in the years before he retired from his full-time position to become the full-time philanthropist. Of course, when it comes to Gates, it’s questionable just how innovative he’s ever been. He used innovation more as market-speak rather than as a genuine goal.

As far as Wall Street is concerned, it appears they may have already digested the potential impact to Apple if Jobs’ sabbatical proves to be permanent rather than temporary. What is evident is that the company’s ongoing performance as a maker of cutting-edge gadgets has evidently not changed. It’s also evident to them that other people at the company are perfectly capable of demonstrating new products and getting plenty of media coverage.

In retrospect, maybe they don’t possess the legendary Steve Jobs “reality distortion field,” but it’s also quite possible that maybe he didn’t totally deserve that label either. Having a skilled marketing department actually designing the promotional strategy, the slide presentations, and perhaps even writing the scripts used in those legendary keynote addresses may have been mostly responsible for their impact. This isn’t to say that Jobs isn’t a good performer, but it’s foolish to think he did it all alone.

Indeed, if the rollout of the iPhone 3.0 SDK was an example, the forthcoming update contains plenty of goodies to talk about without talking about Jobs. The coverage the event received at the time barely scratched the surface in exploring the possibilities, and I’ve tried to go further on the radio show.

This isn’t to say that Steve Jobs was nothing more than a figurehead. Lest we forget, he assembled the staff that created great things first for NeXT and Pixar, and later for Apple when he returned to the company and became its chief executive. The illusion fostered in part by the media that Jobs is the one-man-band that did everything significant at Apple is clearly false. The people who surround him design the products, develop the software and then go out and sell all that stuff.

I firmly believe that this is where Apple has a huge advantage over Microsoft. Apple’s staff demonstrates extreme dedication and functions like a well-oiled machine. There are few missteps and they don’t waste money building products that are unsuccessful; well, except perhaps for the Apple TV. Then again, that’s supposedly a hobby and maybe by sheer perseverance they’ll figure out a way to give it some stature in the marketplace way beyond where it stands now.

With Microsoft, it doesn’t seem as if anything ever changes, however often they proclaim the intention to do something new and different. It’s almost as if they’re stuck in a time warp, believing that Apple’s ascendancy in different markets strictly represents a temporary phenomenon. Some day soon, they believe, Apple will falter, Firefox will fail, and Microsoft will again hold 95% of the browser and operating system markets.

They also evidently believe that they can succeed by throwing tons of money at a problem. Consider how much cash has been invested in developing Windows since the early days. Just Vista alone cost them billions, whereas Apple manages to prosper with a fraction of that investment. So why the disparity?

More to the point, Apple is organized in such a way that, if Jobs never returns to the company, they can continue to move in the same direction with cutting-edge products for many years. Permanent success is never guaranteed, but the current leadership clearly knows what it’s doing. I suppose that can be regarded as the lasting legacy of Steve Jobs.

The legacy of Bill Gates, in contrast, threatens to take the company down. Executives have changed, but the company still can’t deliver the goods on time and with all or most promised features intact. Microsoft still dumps loads of cash on worthless products, such as the Zune music player. Yes, it’s decent enough, but in a sea of decent-enough media players, the iPod took control. There’s nothing that forces Microsoft to continue to build gear most people simply don’t want, but they don’t understand when it’s time to drop an unsuccessful product and move on to something else.

In any case, yes, I would like to see Steve Jobs return to Apple as scheduled in late June, or perhaps even earlier to deliver a surprise keynote at the forthcoming WWDC. That would certainly comfort the Apple skeptics and, if nothing else, perhaps provide a further psychological boost to the stock price. Besides, Jobs is far too young to be sent out to pasture just yet, and I do hope he is on the mend and will remain healthy for a long, long time.