It’s a sure thing that few software companies would survive were it not for repeat customers. If you bought version one, they need to find some way to rope you into buying version two, and so forth and so on. If you get enough loyal customers, you don’t have to work quite as hard to attract new ones.

Or at least that’s the theory.

Now I understand why you might want to get a new car. The old one is wearing out, and the repair bills are now exceeding the monthly cost of buying or leasing a new or “preowned” vehicle. So you take the plunge. Besides, the auto makers have no doubt added some spiffy new features to entice you to drive one of their vehicles home to your garage. Not just the added safety gear, but more room, more horsepower, better fuel economy (even if that seems an oxymoron with a more powerful engine) — that sort of thing.
Things are a little different with a personal computer, where, aside from the hard drive and its mechanical components, and perhaps the optical drive, there are few things that would wear out over time. Yes, logic boards and power supplies do fail, but the latter is fairly economical to replace.

But PC makers — and that includes Apple, since it is a PC maker as much as it tries to draw a distinction between the Mac and the PC — want you to come back for more. So, like the auto makers, they make the products better, or at least faster, and supportive of newer technologies.

The software maker leverages those new technologies and adds them to their products, which, of course, requires you to buy a new computer to get the best possible user experience.

At its core, though, software isn’t going to wear out whether you use an application one time or a billion. Yes, the medium on which it’s stored might degrade over time, or become obsolete, but the software still has the same ones and zeros as it did when it shipped from the pressing plant.

Of course, the application may not work with a new computer, either because it depends on an operating system that’s no longer produced and supported, or the hardware itself isn’t compatible. So, short if keeping the old, slow, dated computer, you buy a new version of that application, and thus the circle of life continues.

However, some companies abuse the privilege of keeping your business, by using excuses rather than new features to entice you to upgrade. Take Office X, the first version of Microsoft’s software suite compatible with Apple’s Unix-based operating system. Microsoft exacted a full upgrade fee for the privilege of buying a product that was, in large part, a revision designed strictly to be native to Mac OS X.

Oh yes, they did throw in a few crumbs that masqueraded as important new features, such as the ability to perform multiple selections within a document. That’s a capability Nisus Writer and other applications have possessed for years.

Of course, you can rag on Microsoft all you want for pulling that stunt, but they were not alone. Quark Inc., which at one time never met a customer they couldn’t abuse, did essentially the same thing with the first native Mac OS X version of QuarkXPress. Again, they added a few token features to justify taking your money.

I could call Quark’s upgrade price a steal, but you might take it too literally.

Now we are patiently awaiting for Office 2008 for the Mac from Microsoft. Rather than just provide native code, they are touting a new feature, the ribbon, regurgitated from the Windows version, Office 2007, but with a Mac-friendly veneer. Supposedly, it’s designed to make it easier to discover the power of Office, but didn’y Microsoft’s Mac BU say the very same thing when they delivered a palette for formatting your documents several versions back? They also used the same term, “discoverable,” so I suppose they could call the ribbon “more discoverable”?

However, I’m a little in the dark about how a ribbon is fundamentally different in function from an application’s toolbar. The pictures at Microsoft’s site aren’t all that illuminating in that respect.

I’m also curious as to why it took four years for Microsoft to deliver that update, assuming, of course, that Office 2008 does arrive on time early next year. That’s just about the time it has taken Apple to build two major operating system upgrades — and that assumes Leopard will appear in the stores next month.

At the same time, Apple’s operating system team ported Mac OS X to Intel processors, and also to the ARM processors used in the iPhone and iPod touch. Somebody ought to teach Microsoft a lesson in efficiency.

Of course, as Microsoft has already discovered on the Windows platform, a lot of potential customers may wonder just why they need to buy another Office upgrade? Will it make them more productive, more efficient, or whatever? Or will it just make the software company wealthier?

Then again, you could raise the same questions about Apple, Leopard, iLife ’08 and iWork ’08. As Apple’s products continue to mature, selling new stuff to old customers has to become a lot more difficult.

An example of how far Apple has climbed in the tech world is the recent story suggesting that the latest version of Adobe’s Creative Suite applications may not run properly under Mac OS X Leopard.

It’s all based on some apparently offhand comments from Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen during an interview that are surely honest, but the interpretations are going way overboard. But then, this is Apple, and anything with the slightest negative implication is apt to be exaggerated beyond all proportion by certain less savory elements of the media.

So let’s look at the facts: Leopard hasn’t shipped yet, nor has Apple specified when it’ll be released, beyond the vague October time-frame. Adobe is clearly receiving prereleased versions, same as any other registered developer, so they are fully aware of the state of the operating system.

At the same time, things are apt to be quite fluid until the moment Leopard is declared Golden Master. A problem discovered today may be fixed by an update tomorrow. Indeed, we could probably expand Adobe’s comment to cover every single Mac software company. None of those products have been tested against anything but beta versions of Leopard. Fixing problems is akin to chasing a moving target, unless, perhaps, Apple assures them that a particular feature that broke their software won’t change in the final release — or a conflict has been fixed. That also requires regular communication between Apple’s software engineers and third parties.

So basically, all Chizen said is that he just doesn’t know, which is, of course, an expression of common sense. If there’s a problem, they’ll fix it. Period. After all, Adobe sells a ton of Mac products, which accounts for a handsome portion of their income. How could it be otherwise?

At the same time, these stories raise the specter of the Adobe Creative Suite having problems with Leopard, which is something that simply can’t be confirmed.

You can, however, use the past as a guide. In large part, applications continue to run just fine as Apple has upgraded Mac OS X. There may be occasional rough spots, but more often then not, they won’t seriously interfere with regular use of the product in question.

The major exceptions occur when a software company’s developers use unsupported techniques or attempt to change a system feature. Such steps, even though they may work just fine, may also create serious trouble for the product or the operating system even when there’s a minor maintenance update.

On the other hand, Apple doesn’t work in a vacuum. They are no doubt testing Leopard against tons of third-party products to make sure they run properly, and to work with the affected developers to set things right. Think they don’t communicate with Adobe, Microsoft, Quark and all the rest of the companies that build mission critical software for the Mac? Well think again, because it’s clear that they do. Indeed, if they discovered something was seriously wrong involving Leopard and the Adobe Creative Suite, they would inform Chizen’s crew forthwith.

So let me go on the record to state that I have no clue how well anything runs under Leopard, but I would submit that there probably won’t be any serious problems with Adobe’s products, any more than there will be serious problems with those of most other companies.

I also gather from what I’ve read about Leopard is that its foundation carries over in large part from previous Mac OS X versions. It’s not a revolution, but an evolution.

Of course, some elements of the tech press, inured to the chronic problems afflicting Windows users whenever Microsoft upgrades its operating system, will probably expect a major catastrophe to occur on the day Leopard is released and is installed on Macs around the world.

I do not expect that to happen. Two and a half years have passed since Tiger’s release. Apple has had plenty of time to refine Leopard and make sure it as stable as possible right out of the starting gate.

Yes, there will be the inevitable 10.5.1 and so on and so forth. I would only hope, though, that they will take the time to squash potential early-release bugs before Leopard appears and not three weeks later. With the eyes of a skeptical tech press following their every move, Apple has to move with far more care than they used to. Of course, that may indeed be a good thing for everyone concerned.

I could, I suppose, call myself a prophet for being co-author of a science fiction novel that, in passing, mentioned Bill Gates as devoting the final portion of his life to philanthropy. The initial draft, for example, was actually written before Gates and his wife started that foundation with which to hand out most of their vast horde of cash, with the help of Warren Buffett and U2 lead singer, Bono.

With far less fanfare than you might expect, Gates last year announced he was stepping away from his day job at Microsoft, and he is now off to deal with other, more charitable concerns. He’ll still maintain a presence at Microsoft, but how long that’ll last is anyone’s guess.

Forgetting the myriad reasons why he took this move — and you might as well disbelieve whatever he said publicly about it — it couldn’t come at a better time. Microsoft these days is as susceptible to the beleaguered label as Apple was only a few years ago.

All right, there’s no immediate threat that Microsoft is going to go out of business in a rush, crashing to the ground in the fashion of Enron several years ago. In fact, there have been few, if any, hints that Microsoft is pulling fast ones on the S.E.C. with their financial statements.

Instead, Microsoft is spending billions paying off lawsuits and funding failing products. In the former case, their inability to overturn that European Union antitrust decision must have come as a huge blow, although I would think their legal counsel was smart enough to realize that the appeal wouldn’t pass muster.

The action by the EU stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice and the American court system that genuflected meekly and removed most of the teeth from their original antitrust decision. In case you forgot, that decision recommended splitting up Microsoft. I’ll withhold comment on how that played with the administration that took over, since that would push us too far into the political arena.

However, it’s not just the legal obstacles and the costs of selling the Xbox and Zune at a loss. That’s chump change for a company the size of Microsoft.

Instead, it’s the fact that this 800-pound gorilla has become old and flabby and doesn’t have near the clout it used to. Let’s forget for the moment all the insidious marketing games it played to attain dominance of the PC industry. In this universe, that’s probably regarded by many MBA candidates as just smart business, and no doubt millions of businesspeople would just love to be able to imitate even a small part of Microsoft’s success.

Where Microsoft has trouble is that it is not taken as seriously as it used to be, and that can have dire consequences. In the old days, if they announced a new product initiative, it would be shouted from the rooftops in the tech media. These days, there will be headlines, and maybe some Microsoft synchophants will continue to tout the company’s superior innovation. But that usually all goes away when the product never appears, or appears in in a form that doesn’t quite match the original promise.

At one time, Microsoft’s OEM hardware partners were almost scared to death to upset the company, lest they lose their special pricing deals and other financial incentives. However, these days, some PC makers are offering Windows XP for those who, for one reason or another, don’t want Vista. Dell is even offering some models equipped with Linux.

It’s not that these things didn’t happen in the past, but these actions are far more overt these days, with nary a whisper from Microsoft. Of course, Microsoft makes a profit regardless of which operating system you buy, so long as it’s Windows.

But the biggest problem facing the company is their inability to spin on a dime. It took more than five years to move from Windows XP to Vista, with significant missteps along the way. At the end of the day, the response has been relatively tepid. Unlike the days of Windows 95, when customers were lining up around the block to get a copy, the introduction of Vista was surprisingly low-key. You’d think, after spending so many years and billions of dollars on its development, Microsoft would be proud of its new operating system.

Instead, you get lame corporate spin over the alleged stellar reception of Vista. At the same time, tech pundits who used to praise Microsoft to the skies call Vista a slug.

This doesn’t mean that Microsoft can’t overcome its problems, such as severely bloated and buggy software, and endless development cycles. Perhaps the company’s new leadership will be able to steer their overwhelming corporate bureaucracy into a new direction where innovation really occurs.

Yes, Microsoft has a plate filled to overflowing. Maybe it was a good time for Gates to get out of the rat race and have a life.

I must admit that I am perhaps a little too tolerant of people who use Windows. Yes, when the occasion arises, I do express the appropriate Mac preference, but I don’t wear an Apple logo on my sleeve.

In fact, I readily accept the need to use Windows on some occasions, particularly in situations where there is no Mac equivalent to the software you need for your business, or adapting to a new application may prove difficult and costly.

On the other hand, I often feel sorry that so many businesses depend on Microsoft to operate their mission-critical software, particularly banks and hospitals, where any service interruption or slow-down can have serious consequences.

A year or two back, I read a report from Consumer Reports, which tends to favor PCs in its coverage, talking of billions of dollars of losses to industries as a result of Windows malware. You had to consider just how the affected companies financed those losses, and the conclusion is obvious. They would simply raise the cost of their products or services, and you and I would foot the bill.

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