As I near a month using Leopard, I continue to delight in its great performance, stability and reasonably good compatibility. It’s not that nothing has gone wrong, but none of the issues seem terribly serious. However, I’m still troubled by all the reports I read online about serious issues that cannot be ignored.

Even after the 10.5.1 update fixed that horrific file movement bug that could, theoretically at least, cause loss of data if something interrupts the process of moving a file across partitions, drives or file shares, some people still aren’t satisfied.

Recently, for example, I read about complaints that Leopard’s stringent graphic needs are hurting the battery life of Mac note-books. Maybe so, but I haven’t seen that on my first-generation 17-inch MacBook Pro. I got roughly three hours under normal circumstances with Tiger, and I’ve observed little change since then. Well, maybe I’m not running software that could substantially exercise the graphics hardware, although I do run a cross-section of applications, including Parallels Desktop and Windows Vista. All right, that does cause battery life to decline more rapidly, but the very same thing is true for Windows users. At least I can quit Vista and get back to my work; they can’t, unless the choose to downgrade to XP.

AirPort reception remains a hot complaint. Again, I’m not seeing it. In fact, since the 10.5.1 update, which did address some AirPort-related troubles, I see an additional bar on the AirPort menu’s signal strength display, and appropriate increases in Internet download speeds. Now it’s not perfect; never was. I am immersed in a sea of Wi-Fi and portable phone soup in this neighborhood, and I’ve gotten improved reception by playing with the channel selection options in my 802.11n edition of Apple’s AirPort Extreme. I settled on Channel 11, after a brief test, but your mileage may vary. Yes, sometimes reception dips almost to the point of disconnecting me from the network, but it used to be worse in pre-Leopard days. Maybe when I have the time, I’ll go back and try some other channels and see if they fare any better.

Again, that’s not a specific Leopard issue.

Just as I was writing this, I read a report about a stuttering mouse anomaly, where the cursor would travel across the screen of its own accord from time to time. Now that particular complaint involved a user with a fair amount of third-party software and peripherals, so maybe that’s where the fault lies.

This isn’t to say I haven’t had difficulties with any input devices. I have one of Logitech’s Cordless Desktop Wave wireless keyboard/mouse combos. Although the ambidextrous mouse, the LX8, is good, it’s not quite the match of Logitech’s superb MX Revolution. Only the most recent software generated fits when I hooked up the MX Revolution’s transceiver to the USB port and tried to use that mouse under Leopard. For example, scrolling down would produce the opposite effect.

Well, Logitech just released version  2.4.0 of their software, and that has cured this apparent conflict, and now I can use the mouse that I prefer. The release notes also state that Logitech is no longer depending on Unsanity’s controversial Application Enhancer to provide access to certain system functions. That’s something that concerned me quite a bit, because the previous version, 2.3.1, did not provide the standard Application Enhancer preference panel, so I wasn’t even aware of its presence.

Indeed, after restarting with the new software, I found some window display inconsistencies in Leopard’s Spaces feature were also history, and managing multiple desktops is now noticeably more fluid and dependable. Even better, the semi-ergonomic keyboard portion of the Desktop Wave combo no longer lags slightly when I’m engaged in a fit of burst typing. I thought that was just a symptom of the keyboard’s response, but, no, it was the software all along. But that particular artifact existed even with Tiger.

The remaining persistent bug exists in Microsoft Word 2004, where I cannot print documents without getting a message, erroneous, that the page is out of range. For now, I simply use the Pages application from iWork ’08 for that purpose. Maybe Microsoft, which is aware of the bug, will fix it before I move to Office 2008. Or maybe not.

The upshot of all this is the unfortunate fact that no PC operating system can be compatible with everything. It’s just not in the cards. Even though Apple has a limited number — relatively speaking — of models available, there is no possible way they can predict all the theoretical interactions as the result of thousands of potential system configurations.

Sure, maybe they did ship Leopard somewhat prematurely, no doubt because of marketing pressure and not to miss another deadline. But that’s how the software business works. If the bug is serious, it’s clear from the recent 10.5.1 update that Apple will do their level best to set things right.

And that, my friends, is the best you can hope for in this highly imperfect world.

In interviewing Macworld’s Jason Snell for this week’s special holiday episode of The Tech Night Owl LIVE, I heard some information that didn’t surprise me. You see, many of you haven’t had an easy ride hooking up your new flat-panel TV to get real high-definition programming.

You’d think it should be an easy task. After all, virtually everybody has a TV and most of you have several around in your home and perhaps office. But hookups aren’t so easy any more. The connection panel of a typical HDTV these days has a plethora of jacks, with such arcane names as S-video, component, DVI and HDMI. VIZIO, a small company that has soared to the top of the flat-panel TV market from out of nowhere, uses the PC metaphor in identifying the proper connection schemes. Indeed, the jacks are color coded for easy identification and a single-page quick setup guide helps a fair amount. But the cable makers don’t color code their products, and, besides, what connection scenario is going to get the best possible picture quality?

Now if you don’t want to mess with this stuff, perhaps you’d be inclined to let your dealer or perhaps the cable or satellite service handle the installation process for you. But Jason says that doesn’t always work, because quite often they don’t hook your set up to get genuine high-definition reception. So you spend a thousand dollars or perhaps a lot more for the latest and greatest TV with a large screen and you’re getting standard definition fare instead.

Something is indeed seriously wrong with the industry if even the so-called expert installers can’t figure out how to get you properly connected. To make matters worse, come 2009, analog TV in the U.S. will be history, which means you will be forced to hook your old set to digital cable, satellite, or get an outboard set top adapter to convert the analog signals to digital.

The government is going to give you two $40 certificates to buy the adapter  box, although they’ll probably cost somewhat more than that. I just wonder what logic they used to get that figure, if it doesn’t cover the full purchase price. Anyway, if you don’t want to just stretch the life of your existing set, you might indeed want to enter the digital TV age with something brand new.

But it’s not just the hookup process that can get a little confusing. TV specs themselves often make little sense to regular people, such as whether you need 720p or 1080p resolution. What about LCD versus plasma, and direct view versus projection? The typical consumer electronics store has dozens of sets on display, and the salespeople aren’t always so well educated about the various feature distinctions, let alone how to explain it to someone who isn’t technically savvy.

And even if you connect the thing properly, what about all those strange options in the setup menu? Can you sort them out, or do you just let it play in its default mode, even if you’re not getting the best quality picture.

Some of this reminds you of the wireless phone mess, where most of the existing products contain features only power users can use, let alone master.

Of course, there’s salvation in the wireless phone space, in the form of the iPhone. And even if it doesn’t sport every conceivable feature on the planet, it can do more simply because you and I can figure out how things work without navigating through numerous complicated setup screens that are dangerously reminiscent of Microsoft Windows.

Today, there is the Apple TV, but it’s just another set top box. Easy to use, yes, but it still means connecting another gadget to a product that still remains mystifying.

So would it make sense for Apple to go up against dozens of TV makers, from the big consumer electronics conglomerates to the folks who build the cheap products? Surely, Apple is best equipped to devise a connection and configuration interface that would allow you to get the maximum pleasure from HDTV. But would they really want to go up against all that entrenched competition with such costly products?

Then again, didn’t they say the same thing about cell phones?

Without mentioning the names of the usual offenders, I often wonder if some tech pundits exist solely to find bad news, whatever it might be, the better to increase the hit count, and regardless of whether the bad tidings are accurate or not.

Take Firefox, the cross-platform browser that’s reinvigorated the tarnished reputation of the Mozilla organization in the wake of Microsoft’s trouncing defeat of the original Netscape years ago. These days Firefox and its derivatives, including Camino for Mac OS X and a reborn Navigator, hold over 15% of the browser market. In some countries, it’s more popular than Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. And Apple’s Safari isn’t doing to badly either.

The newest version of Firefox, 3.0, is also months late. The first public beta, for example, came out Monday, and already there were complaints about possible lingering bugs by people who never actually used the application on any platform. It all seems to stem from a statement on the part of a Mozilla official that some 700 bugs remained in the latest version of Firefox, but only about 20% of them would be closed, or fixed, before release.

Now you can look at that statement two ways, and one is that Firefox will be one buggy mess. But this isn’t necessarily true. If anything, Mozilla has been pretty good about fixing crashing issues, and they’ve regularly delivered needed security updates. So where did this perception come from?

Well, having 540 bugs remaining in any application as complicated as a Web browser is probably not unusual. I don’t pretend to know how many remain in Internet Explorer or even Safari for that matter, but it all depends on the type and severity of that bug.

Or even if it’s a bug at all.

If the issue is a feature that may not be fully implemented, or a cosmetic or design component that might be a little off, you might classify it as a bug all right, but it’s not something that must be fixed before the product is released. So such things get lower priority.

Now when it comes to something that might cause the application, or worse, the computer itself, to crash, that’s another story entirely, and that defect would (or should) be fixed right away. The same is true for something that could corrupt your data.

Another highly significant issue is security. If some backdoor can be exploited by an online criminal, you expect the developers to work overtime to deal with the matter.

So where does that leave Mozilla and its statement about leaving all those open bugs in Firefox 3?

Well, technically they call them “blockers,” and they point out that it’s normal to take the less significant problems and set them aside until the major troubles are resolved. Then, as with all developers, they peck away at the matters that may not impact many people, and if they do, not seriously.

That’s a far cry from shipping a buggy product.

Speaking of which, the first beta of Firefox 3 does show a fair amount of promise, with a load of new features that, for the sake of space and not duplicating what you can already get elsewhere, I’ll only summarize a few highlights.

In order of importance, there are a number of enhancements that address security, such as built-in malware and Web forgery protection, and one-click site info. The latter feature displays critical information about a site when you click its favicon (the little icon adjacent to the site’s address).

There’s also more powerful password management, making it easier to save passwords for sites to which you have to login. In addition, file downloading can now be resumed, the spell checker is integrated with the one provided in Mac OS X, and bookmark and history organization has been improved.

The most important enhancement at all is the new Gecko 1.9 engine, which supposedly improves graphics, text rendering, and printing of a site’s contents.

Since it is the first beta, I wasn’t expecting perfection, and I did find it a little ragged as far as site rendering performance is concerned. But I didn’t encounter any crashes — at least not yet — and basic compatibility with my usual spate of online watering holes seemed pretty decent for the most part, though there are a few glitches. I was even able to edit this article in WordPress without any untoward effects.

The final version of Firefox 3 will be available for the Mac OS, Linux and Windows some time in 2008. But you can enjoy it now if you like to test the cutting-edge. And please don’t fret about those exaggerated bug reports.

When I read a story the other day quoting someone from Microsoft almost begging people to give Vista a try, I had to come away with the feeling that they were struggling to right a sinking ship.

Of course, it’s also true that you can’t call Vista an abject failure. All right, people haven’t been lining up to buy retail upgrade kits, as they’ve done with Mac OS X Leopard, but it’s also true that millions upon millions of new PCs ship with various and sundry versions of Vista. So you really can’t say that it’s become a money loser for Microsoft. In fact, it has been estimated that their profit margin from operating systems is in the range of 80%, so it’s a win-win situation.

But they can’t say the user experience has been anything near as good as they hoped for. There are loads of incompatibilities with peripherals and you need extremely powerful hardware to deliver all those fancy 3D visual effects. That, of course, depends on whether Vista users really care all that much about eye-candy, of course.

The greatest insult to Microsoft, however, is the fact that PC makers are still letting their customers downgrade to Windows XP, and its shelf life has been extended for months to allow that to continue to occur.

Now on a practical basis, a sale is a sale, and Microsoft is still showing stellar profits, even if a lot of them come from older product.

I also believe they’re really trying to make Vista better. Just last week, they released updates that supposedly make Vista use note-book batteries more efficiently, and address some USB bugs and other issues. But that’s an awfully long time to address serious issues of this sort.

In comparison, Leopard shipped October 26, and less than three weeks later, there was Apple with a 10.5.1 update with lots of changes and security patches. A file copying bug, involving moving a file to another partition, drive, or network share, was evidently also repaired on the process, and the current reaction appears to be pretty good. Yes, there are the usual number of random conflicts with something-or-other reported on the Mac troubleshooting sites, but no significant trends or major new defects appear to have emerged so far.

While I realize that many of you are disappointed with Leopard’s higher CPU requirements, it is nowhere near as massive as Windows Vista. Those ubiquitous $399 PCs have an awful time with it, and are stuck with a sharply-reduced interface. But does it end up as a warmed-over version of XP? Probably not, but I can see folks feeling that way when year-old PCs exhibit performance limitations trying to deliver the full Aero interface effect.

Understand, I want to be fair to Microsoft. After all, their operating system powers over 90% of the world’s personal computers, and major businesses depend on them. If they fail to deliver a reliable product, the computers that manage bank transactions, medical records and other critical data cease to function reliably. Many millions of people suffer, or end up paying higher prices to cover the cost of repairs.

As I have suggested in yesterday’s commentary, maybe Microsoft is losing its focus in its struggles to complete with Google in delivering ad-sponsored search and other Web services. Once again, there is an emerging rumor that Microsoft is hell-bent on acquiring Yahoo somehow, to magically increase its share of the search market to 30%.

The big question, of course, is whether Yahoo would be amenable to such a takeover. What’s more, how would the company be impacted? Even if such a sale passes all the regulatory hurdles, would Yahoo’s key executives and engineers simply jump ship? Would they just go to Google, assuming they could gain employment there?

Even if such a merger were to succeed in large part, would it really help Microsoft take a huge jump in improving its Web services share? Or would the maneuver end up simply diluting both brands? How, for example, would the combined company manage synergy, assuming such a thing even existed?

Based on some casual research, it appears that most of Yahoo’s servers are running FreeBSD and Linux operating systems. Clearly Microsoft would prefer they run some version of Windows Server instead, but that’s not something that can be accomplished so easily, when you’re dealing with thousands of boxes spread around the world. The other question is whether such a move would generate a massive rebellion on the part of Yahoo’s programming and IT staff.

Even if an operating system transplant were to happen, it would probably be a gradual migration, with no guarantee of success. It’s not as if Windows Server is easier to manage.

Meantime, Microsoft is laboring over its first Vista service pack, now in beta testing and due early next year. Even if it does arrive on time, will it contain all the essential fixes that will change the skeptical minds of IT people who are, according to published reports, still reluctant to deploy Vista in a production environment?

Now over time, resource needs won’t seem as severe, as more and more PCs are upgraded with newer, Vista-savvy hardware. But will Microsoft have to go back to the drawing boards, and rush up Vista’s successor, or fix what’s broken now before Vista can be declared a real — and not imagined — success?