Lots of pundits are content with putting the words “Apple Inc.” and “proprietary” in the same sentence. A lot of that is, of course, due to the tight vertical integration of all of their products, from the iPod to Macs and Mac OS X.

However, there is an awful lot about the Mac these days that isn’t exclusive to Apple, which is why people can now, without any special training or engineering skills, assemble their own Macs. But this story really began in 1998, when the iMac was first announced.

In those days, you see, I was a member of Apple’s Customer Quality Feedback (or CQF) program, before journalists were barred. In addition to prerelease operating system software, one day they sent me an original Bondi blue iMac. The optical drive’s cover was missing, but it was otherwise fully intact and functional. I ran it through the usual spate of tests, and even let my son, then 12, have at it for a few months, with the promise not to tell his friends about his special access.

In the end, I expected to be able to keep the iMac. But just week’s before Apple’s hot-selling all-in-one Mac first went on sale, they sent me a firmware update, which somehow bricked the machine. I don’t know if that was deliberate or not, but it also meant that I had to return it for diagnosis. Oh well, it would have been nice to be the first on the block, but that’s how it goes.

Now Apple confronted a spate of harsh criticisms from the Mac faithful at the time, because they ditched all the proprietary ports, such as ADB and LocalTalk, in exchange for USB and Ethernet (which had originally trickled down from high-end models) when they introduced the iMac. Now USB, in those days, was strictly the province of the PC. Yes, there were adapters to allow you to use your old input devices and other peripherals, but the handwriting was on the wall. Within a year or so, as the rest of the Mac lineup fell in place, companies could build one device, such as a printer or a scanner, and have it work on a Mac or a PC simply by supplying compatible drivers.

That, and abandoning standard SCSI ports and all the misery they caused brought Macs closer in design to standard personal computers.

Please don’t ask me about the infamous hockey puck mouse. A nice cottage industry arose around that time, servicing folks who wanted sensible extensions to the mouse, so that misbegotten device would look almost normal. But it was just as cheap to buy a separate mouse, normally shaped, and be done with it.

Of course, one of biggest changes began in mid-2005, when Steve Jobs confirmed the published rumors that Apple planned to ditch the Power PC and move to Intel processors. At the time, if you follow this site, you’ll know I greeted the news with great anticipation. Others didn’t feel so optimistic, and there was criticism at the time that Apple was abandoning a superior processor architecture for nefarious reasons, and would suffer greatly.

That was before the entire Mac line transitioned to Intel in months, rather than the expected two years. More to the point, Apple is now moving nearly three times as many new Macs each quarter than they used to. Today’s Macs also benchmark a lot faster than their predecessors, and, all in all, the Intel transition was actually a good thing.

What it means, of course, is that the internal workings of the Mac and the PC have become extremely close. They share processors, graphic chips, hard drives, optical drives and support circuitry. This is what makes it possible for hobbyists to make those unauthorized Mac OS clones, of course.

Then there’s Mac OS X. Although the higher levels are proprietary and controlled by Apple, the underbelly, the so-called Darwin core, is open source, and uses a number of traditional Unix tools that power users know all about. You’ll even find such things as the Apache Web server and MySQL among the hundreds of thousands of files that make up the typical Mac OS X installation.

The operating system is also incredibly portable, meaning that Apple can make it work on different processor platforms in fairly quick order. While the original NeXT operating system, on which Mac OS X is based, began on the original Motorola 68K family (the Power PC’s predecessor), it did move to the Intel platform years ago. So Apple already knew what was required to return to x86 chips, and that’s one of the reasons the transition was handled so seamlessly.

The iPhone and iPod touch use ARM-based processors, and OS X too, and Apple apparently managed that migration pretty well too, although they had to postpone Leopard’s release by several months to finish the job. This is not a process, as Microsoft should know but doesn’t, that you can speed up simply by adding more bodies to the code mines.

Where Mac OS X and Apple’s technologies will go next is an open question. But by embracing open standards in many surprising ways, the original iMac paved the way for Apple’s incredible 21st century resurgence.

Sure, you may argue that today’s iMac is perhaps a little too slick, and the glossy screen is certainly a controversial matter in some quarters. But it is not just descended from the original version in 1998, but the very first Mac in 1984. Then as now, the mainstream Mac was meant to be an all-in-one personal computing appliance.

You may debate the use of the term “appliance” for any personal computer, even now, but it’s clear that, despite all the ups and downs, Apple has come a long way towards achieving that worthy goal.

Just the other day, I had a pleasant conversation with Macworld’s Rob Griffiths about his “FrankenMac” project, his weekend warrior project to build a Mac from off-the-shelf PC parts.

In a sense, I understand what he was attempting to do, and it wasn’t to save money, not if you value your time. Back when I was real young — and that seems to have all happened in another world — I enjoyed assembling radio kits. While other kids in the neighborhood were busy learning such pedestrian pastimes as baseball and basketball, I sat in my room with soldering gun in hand putting various and sundry pieces together.

I most enjoyed the “spark test,” where I would plug in my creation into the wall socket, turn it on, and hope it didn’t flash sparks. Fortunately, nothing amiss ever occurred. That was quite unlike my late brother, Wallace, who, legend has it, once put something together with a chemistry set and blew out a wall in our Brooklyn apartment. In his adult life, he managed the research team at Johnson & Johnson that invented such products as Reach toothbrushes and Retin-A, so he never gave up working with chemicals and related materials.

In my adult life, I learned quickly to appreciate having something pre-assembled by the manufacturer. For one thing, if there was an assembly error, they would take the responsibility for it and fix or replace the defective product. So while others of my generation may have put together personal computers from spare parts, that was never anything that intrigued me. I preferred to concentrate my creative efforts on doing things with the tools the computer provided, such as a word processor or multimedia application.

However, with Apple’s switch to Intel processors and their increasing use of industry-standard parts, you can well understand that there is a temptation to see if you can build a real Mac from the spare parts.

When it comes to most everything you’ll find inside your Mac, any PC parts catalog will probably get you a generic equivalent, from the case and power supply, to the microprocessors, graphic cards, hard drives, optical drives and RAM. If you are capable of following instructions and you’re handy with a few tools, you’ll probably come through the ordeal without suffering too many bruises, mentally and otherwise.

The fly in the ointment, however, is Mac OS X. According to Apple’s well-known user license, the Mac OS is only meant to be installed on an Apple branded computer. If you attempt to install it on any other computer, you are in violation of that license.

Even if you do decide to take the law into your own hands and install Mac OS X anyway, don’t expect a trivial process. For one thing, you have to follow certain steps, clearly detailed in various online forums, to hack the system installer and recognize the unapproved hardware. You also have to observe special care in selecting such peripherals as optical drives and even the graphics card, because Apple only supports a limited number of models and configurations, and the rest may just not work. A few minutes on Google will reveal all if you’re curious.

Now I don’t expect Apple to clamp down on an individual do-it-yourself type, any more than I expect them to file legal action against Rob Griffiths and Macworld as a result of their efforts. In fact, Rob is actually going to restore the computer to function in the manner originally intended, as a PC gaming machine, with no sign of the Mac OS in sight. It’ll be history.

However, there are no doubt thousands of people around the world who have done the very same thing and have not incurred Apple’s wrath. They do know there will be no tech support from Apple for their mistakes, so they are on their own.

Even though you’ll probably be able to assemble a Mac clone that provides superior performance to the comparably-priced genuine article, when you factor in the time it takes to complete the project successfully, you probably won’t be saving much. But that’s not the point; it’s the satisfaction of a job well done.

However, the genuine Mac will be better built, and just look a whole lot prettier. More to the point, you’ll be free to install updates without having to concern yourself whether Apple might pull a stunt that would turn your carefully-crafted personal computer into a door stop.

But I don’t see a trouble-free future in the cards for Psystar Corporation, the company behind the Open Computer that they are selling with Mac OS X Leopard preloaded. As the first shipments reach the hands of consumers, I suspect Apple will soon call out its legal team to put a stop to Psystar’s blatant disregard of their intellectual property rights.

You see, a license agreement will have no standing unless it’s enforced, so Apple cannot just leave well enough alone.

But if you want to build one yourself, in the privacy of your kitchen table or garage, have fun. I won’t do it, but I wish you luck in your endeavors.

Whenever I consider possible future hardware and software from Apple, the well-worn phrase, “We do not discuss unreleased products” comes to mind. Indeed, getting a roadmap of any of their ongoing development programs seldom occurs, and when it does, there’s always a specific marketing reason, or the need to get developers onboard.

Yes, the iPhone was preannounced six months before it went on sale, but not so much because it had to get FCC approval before it went on sale. That would likely have occurred within a few weeks of the actual release, and Apple could have started its publicity push then.

In the case of the iPhone, unlike many other Apple products, there was no danger of gutting sales of a previous model, except for the smartphones manufactured by other companies. Instead, Apple built up months and months of intense anticipation before a single iPhone was sold. Indeed, that’s probably one huge reason why it was a hit from the get-go.

When it comes to the rumored and expected 3G upgrade, well, you know it’ll happen, because AT&T has admitted it. You probably expect the release to coincide with the 2.0 firmware update, but Apple isn’t saying. Indeed, I’m sure they do not want to have folks stop buying current models while they ponder the possibilities.

Even then, don’t forget what Steve Jobs said months ago that existing 3G chips, as of that time, drew too much power, meaning you’d have much less talk and standby time on your iPhone, and that isn’t something to take lightly in exchange for faster Internet speeds. You assume the chips are probably coming online now, but there’s no telling whether Apple can get the quantities they need when they need them.

You wonder, now, why Apple bought PA Semi? Not to revert to the Power PC, but to get the collective genius of a number of processor engineers onboard who might help Apple create the support chips they require for their products without always having to depend on a third party to get their development work completed and ramp up the production lines on schedule.

Now, when it comes to operating systems, Apple will deliver the preliminaries fairly early, because they need to make sure that developers are fully acquainted with the changes and new features. You heard about the iPhone SDK as soon as it was ready to download because Apple needs to offer a rich selection of third-party iPhone apps by late June, when it presents iPhone 2.0. No sense having an Apps Store with little to sell, and I expect there will be hundreds of choices from the first day, perhaps thousands.

However, when Leopard was released, developers reportedly didn’t get their hands on the Golden Master version until after it went on sale. Now I realize Apple may not have had much in the way of lead time from having the upgrade ready for release to getting it into production. At the same time, they could have provided a download version for developers a couple of weeks earlier, thus making it easier for needed third-party software updates to be ready to coincide as close as possible to Leopard’s on-sale date.

Now why would Apple withhold an operating system seed to developers who paid for the program and signed the appropriate nondisclosure agreements?

Why indeed, and it would seem to me that there might be a tinge of paranoia involved, a fear that the software would be pirated. But all that delay does is postpone the inevitable for a couple of weeks, at the expense of inconveniencing legally-contracted developers who only want to make sure their products function reliably with the new operating system.

Does that make sense to you?

In the old days, Apple would even sign up Mac magazine publishers and show them new products under properly-executed confidentiality agreements. That would allow them to post reviews and features on the very day the new product was released. Now here I can see where the tech press of the 21st century may, in some respects, be less trustworthy, so I can understand Apple’s reluctance. In the end, though, they mostly inconvenience customers, particularly business owners who might want to buy the new model but are forced to wait until the reviews are in.

One issue that hurts Apple in the enterprise is that large companies want a vendor’s product roadmap. Other than the exceptions noted above, they won’t get one from Apple. Event marketing and product roadmaps stand at opposite ends of the spectrum. Besides, Apple isn’t catering to big companies. They are doing nicely with consumers and small businesses, and if a large company CEO decides to deploy Macs anyway, all well and good.

I can see Apple’s point, too. There are vultures circling out there, and Apple has gained prominence in large part because they release insanely great new products that defy our expectations. Competitors don’t have time to enter the ring because Apple has already set the bar even higher or moved in a totally different direction, and even the best corporate spies routinely fail at divining their intentions.

At the same time, I think there are areas where Apple can become more forthcoming without hurting their competitive advantage. What do you think?

So I was hanging out chatting with David, a fellow New Yorker who owns the nearby UPS Store, about personal computers. He knows I use Macs, and I’m aware that he’s a Windows advocate. He started claiming, all over again, that his home PC cost a lot less than any comparable Mac. So, with few customers arriving to disturb our conversation, I took ahold of one of his transaction computers and ran the inevitable price comparison all over again.

He knows I recently acquired a spanking new Mac Pro, whereas he has a home-built PC filled to the gills to provide stellar gaming performance. Once again, I suggested the Mac Pro was a lot more affordable than the comparable PC box. He strongly disagreed, as expected, so I suggested we compare apples to apples (actually Apples and Dells) to see what facts we could unearth.

To begin with, he suggested I select Windows XP Professional from the PC order sheet — he dismissed Vista as readily as I did.

Now understand I have a soft spot in my heart for Dell’s displays. The 30-inch HC model I have on my desktop is simply marvelous, with a clear, bright and accurate color picture. Even better, it’s cheaper than Apple’s to the tune of several hundred dollars. So whenever I do price comparisons, I strategically ignore displays.

At the same time, I do hope Apple will one day realize we don’t all want all-in-ones and will refresh its display line with better performance and more affordable pricing.

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