It’s clear that trust is hard to earn, and extremely easy to lose. Here in the U.S., we don’t trust government, and we certainly wonder about those lavish promises the presidential candidates are making that will be promptly forgotten the day after the election.

With the endless battle between Apple and Microsoft taking on new directions, it’s important to consider just how much of their PR chatter can be believed.

Back in the 1990s, for example, Apple made all sorts of promises, but few came to pass, and where they did, the products were often something less-than-spectacular. Most of you remember Copland, for example, the vision of a world-class operating system that was killed during the fitful start of its initial beta stage.

When Steve Jobs returned and took control of the company, he also made promises that were difficult to deliver, such as the first iteration of Mac OS X, known as Rhapsody. It’s not that Apple couldn’t produce what was essentially an updated version of its NeXT operating system, but Apple’s key software developers balked. They didn’t want to undergo the time and expense to do major rejiggering of their applications.

That’s why Apple went back to the drawing board, and created Mac OS X’s Aqua interface, a modern updating of the original Mac’s look and feel.

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

Night Owl Rating:
Pros: Smooth, comfortable keyboard action; easy setup, good Mac compatibility.
Cons: So where’s the caps lock indicator?

As most of you know, I’ve been hugely impressed with two keyboards that sort of mimic the ergonomic style. What I mean is that the bottom portion of the keyboard spreads sideways. Logitech expanded on this approach with its Wave keyboard, which does what the name implies, and that is to eschew the typically flat style and have the keys rise higher in the center and lower at the sides, a sort of wavy approach.

All this is, in theory at least, supposed to allow you to type more comfortably for hours on end. Now I cannot say that this scheme necessarily works for all people, but after typing for long hours each day over a period of well over four decades (I started real young by the way), I find that my wrists seldom ache at the end of a busy session. I might be lucky, it may be because I exercise six days a week, but perhaps using these specialty keyboards has helped in recent years.

Now keyboards are, obviously, a huge deal for me, but I’m rather fickle. I tire of one after a year or so, and tend to swap it for another. On this particular occasion, I wanted to return to Microsoft’s Wireless Laser Desktop for Mac. Unfortunately, the keyboard was dead; even a new battery wouldn’t restore its functionality.

So I rung up Microsoft and they sent me one of their Natural Ergonomic Desktop 7000 boxes as a replacement, which includes a hefty, egg-shaped multi-button mouse. If you’re keeping score, this product carries a street price of $125, which is somewhat more expensive than most desktop combos.

For the price, it’s hefty, rugged looking and full-featured with lots and lots of extra buttons on both the keyboard and mouse. Even better, Microsoft makes it clear the black and silver 7000 is Mac compatible on the box, and that’s true. However, there is no Command or clover left symbol on the appropriate keytops It just says Alt in the Windows style, although the Mac software maps it to the correct function.

The rest of the defaults are well-integrated, except for the Search button that wants to find Apple’s now-discontinued Sherlock. Oh well. It’s also true that the software hasn’t been updated in nearly a year, so maybe Microsoft just didn’t anticipate Leopard, or wanted to consider folks using older Mac OS versions. Meantime, you can program it as you wish, using the Microsoft Keyboard preference pane. Naturally, I set it to invoke the Spotlight search window.

Of course the big attraction of the 7000 keyboard is its strict adherence to ergonomic design. Between the two halves of the sloping alphanumeric keypad, by the way, is a Zoom button that I’ll get to in a moment.

Over the years, I have avoided true ergonomic keyboards on sight alone. I just didn’t want to force myself to learn to type all over again — or at least that’s what I expected. But when I managed to take to the semi-ergonomic style within a couple of hours, I opted to get it another whirl.

Sure enough, after about a day of heavy-duty work, I found myself about 80% adapted to the new design, and it is indeed supremely comfortable. I find, for example, that I’m making fewer mistakes in my typing, and I’m one of those burst typists that concentrate more on putting letters on the screen than on absolute accuracy.

The programmable action buttons are all large and smooth in their operation, but I’m most impressed by Microsoft’s concept of a Zoom button. You see it doesn’t just blow up the text in a supported application window. It also uses Quartz text rendering, so the lettering remains sharp and crisp. Good job, Microsoft.

The form-fitting mouse is also nicely designed, falling comfortably into my hand and helping me absorb hours and hours of intense audio editing, which requires lots of repeated mouse movements.

All right, despite being a Microsoft product, everything seems to be sweetness and light. But with them, there are always exceptions. This elaborate keyboard doesn’t present a caps lock light or display, nor is there one on your menu bar, such as Logitech delivers with their Wave combo. Then again, that’s Microsoft for you. You’d think that such a basic feature would be essential, but I suppose I could always request it for the next edition of their Mac software.

I haven’t tried it under Windows yet, so maybe it exists in that environment. Someone let me know.

Sure, you can buy lots and lots of desktop combos for a lot less money. On the other hand, if total comfort is important to you, and you want lots of programmable keys to play with, I suppose Microsoft’s 7000 Desktop is as good as any, and better, frankly, than most.

So I set up a brand, spanking new second-generation Mac Pro for a client the other day. This is the super duper Apple workstation that incorporates the new Harpertown or Penryn versions of the Intel Xeon processor, with more onboard cache, faster memory throughput, higher bus speed, improved onchip support for multimedia and similar goodies.

The computer was dressed to kill in most respects. Although its owner opted for the base 2.8GHz dual quad-core configuration, he didn’t suffer significantly. After all, the difference between that model’s performance and the speediest version, 3.2GHz, averages less than 10% in most cases. So paying $1,600 for a speed bump that will never be detected except in timed benchmarks and extended 3D rendering didn’t make a whole lot of sense.

However, this box is smartly configured otherwise. It came from the factory with a pair of 500GB internal drives, the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT graphics card, a $200 option, and built-in AirPort. On top of that, we acquired four 2GB RAM cards from my friend Larry O’Connor’s Other World Computing, and the end result was a 10GB powerhouse for less than $3,900. You don’t want to know what Apple charges for that memory upgrade, by the way, and, as third-party tests show, OWC’s product is just as good at a fraction of the price.

Anyway, when I set up this computer for the client, I didn’t bother to actually run it until the RAM upgrade was installed and all peripherals connected (including an external FireWire backup drive and two networked printers). Sure I was probably taking a huge chance, but living on the edge sometimes makes sense, and, by the way, I rarely encounter bad memory when you get it from a responsible supplier.

Still, after reading all the troubles and tribulations people have reported with Leopard, you’d think I was making an open challenge to the “Gods” here, but I don’t think so. I have a great batting average setting up new Macs.

After migrating over 150GB of stuff from an older Mac courtesy of Apple’s Migration Assistant, I set down to downloading the latest Leopard updates. After 10.5.2 and a handful of other files were installed, a restart and a recheck of System Update brought news of the infamous Leopard Graphics Update 1.0.

Now Apple doesn’t say an awful lot about that update, although the name implies it’s primarily an archive of new graphics drivers. Since Leopard is known to have a few graphics-related performance shortcomings, I suggested to Jim Galbraith, Macworld’s Lab Director, that he test several computers before this update and after. To his credit, he — a rare breed indeed — listened to me, or maybe I simply affirmed what he planned to do anyway. The test results published by Macworld show a respectable performance jump.

At the same time, there has been some complaints about strange graphic artifacts after the graphics update is installed, but a few “voodoo” fixes, such as zapping the P-RAM and other age-old maintenance maneuvers, often set things right.

Now I have to tell you that you can’t take a survey based on a single sample and apply it to everyone. However, this Mac Pro is the best example of a pristine platform, since the only thing done before it was fired up for the first time was to install extra memory. However, it also had all the files transported from a well-used Power Mac G5. So if there was anything in those files that would compromise a successful update, it surely would have happened.

It goes to the basic point that I rarely seem to encounter the issues that others have experienced with Apple’s updates. This isn’t to say that Leopard has been perfect for me, and it’s also true that people I respect have encountered all sorts of difficulties in certain areas. Take John Rizzo, publisher of the popular cross-platform integration site, MacWindows.com. John says that many issues involving connecting and networking Macs with Windows PCs remain unresolved even in the 10.5.2 update. Remember, too, that similar issues erupted in the wake of Tiger’s release, it it took even more updates for things to settle down in a reasonable fashion.

Before you suggest I got a specially-manipulated Mac Pro for the client, bear in mind that it was a standard custom-order unit ordered from Apple, to be sure, but still not given any special handling. It had third-party memory and lots of third-party software.

However, Apple faces a losing battle trying to make their products fully compatible with thousands upon thousands of different system configurations. No company is large enough or has enough cash and personnel to test for every single possibility that something might go wrong.

Yes, you and I are the final beta testers. That’s the way it is, and things are still considerably better on the Mac platform, particularly when you consider the known issues that create havoc for Windows users, but they will never be perfect.

Sure, Apple likely needs to bake its products a little longer before they’re released. But you can say that about every single tech company, every auto maker, and then some. That’s the price we pay for the great wonders these companies have delivered to us. But you have to expect the pain as well as the reward.

A certain TV commercial rather humorously depicts someone walking with trepidation to the nearest mailbox, ostensibly in fear of that month’s cell phone bill. Why they should fear this fateful close encounter is simple: They are in stark fear of exceeding their monthly bucket of minutes, and thus face hideous overage charges.

Indeed, when each extra minute can cost you 40 or 50 cents each, this can rapidly add up, and it means one huge profit margin for the wireless companies. At the same time, competition will often force a company to do previously unexpected things in order to compete.

So here we have AT&T riding high, partly because of the rise of the iPhone. Their share of the market compared to Verizon Wireless, number two these days, has continued to improve. So what did Verizon do? Well, they could have knocked down their prices somewhat, but AT&T also has rollover minutes, where, if unused, they carry over to the following month. The extra minutes last for up to a year, but it can ultimately mean you don’t have to buy a more expensive plan in case you might exceed the allotment one month. Unless you play it close to the vest, you’ll usually end up ahead.

What this means, of course, is that AT&T can still offer better deal, even if it were more costly than Verizon. So Verizon’s solution was to do something that’s so perfectly logical you wonder why it was never previously attempted, and that’s add a flat rate plan for $99.99. That means that, regardless of how many phone calls you make, it’s the same price, and the plan includes both domestic long distance and roaming.

AT&T’s response, which reportedly goes into effect on February 22, will evidently match the plan, and even iPhones are supported.

Understand that these new rate plans are strictly for the phone calls. Data, messaging, extra lines and other frills are extra, just as they are now.

Personally, I think it’s going to be a huge success, and that lots of people who buy lesser plans will upgrade simply out of fear that they will somehow accidentally exceed the limits some day. Sure, there will be people who will live day and night on their cell phones, in the same fashion as some of you will gorge yourself at the buffet dinner, but they will remain in the minority.

However, assuming AT&T follows Verizon’s structure all the way through, these plans have one huge negative that may seriously impair their value for most families. The minutes cannot be shared. What this means, based on Verizon’s price list, is that the same flat rate applies to each individual line. That’s right, although this obvious shortcoming hasn’t be given a whole lot of publicity. So if you have two phones in your family, the price doubles. Go ahead and factor in the increases for more lines from there.

That could be one huge show-stopper, unless each family member is already ringing up big minute allotments. I have three phones on my AT&T account, including the iPhone. Obviously I am not going to be interested in paying close to $300 for three lines, plus the added costs for data, unlimited messaging, taxes and all the rest of the stuff they pack onto a cell phone bill these days. For me, that would take my monthly bill within touching distance of $400.

On the other hand, I can see the benefits of this plan for many of you, and maybe the wireless carriers will consider an affordable shared minutes alternative soon.

But having broached a more realistic rate plan, the carriers still have lots of work to do in other areas. Despite reportedly spending billions and billions of dollars to upgrade their networks, call quality can still be pathetic in many situations. Sometimes the caller sounds as if they are slogging through water, wearing diving gear. At inopportune times, you’re disconnected.

Sure I know that AT&T promises fewer dropped calls, and Verizon Wireless exhorts us to believe they have the best wireless phone network on the planet. But they still do not approach the consistent call quality of the traditional landline phone system in the days of the original Ma Bell.

So while the prices may become more sensible, at least in certain situations, can you depend on your wireless service to provide great call quality with 99.99% uptime? Not by a long shot. Alas, that huge investment appears to be earmarked strictly for faster broadband and multimedia features, not superior call quality.

Or does anyone even care?