It's a common theory that Apple is a "hardware company" not a "software company." What does that mean? Doesn't it actually sell both?

The idea is that Apple uses software to push more hardware sales. If Apple was a software company, you wouldn't see the fantastic and very useful iLife bundle of applications included for free on every new Mac, including the el-cheapo Mini. Instead, they might decide to charge $99 for it, or worse, break it up into pieces and distribute it as separate packages, each with its own price.

Snow Leopard's price also seems to support this theory, especially when contrasted to Microsoft's pricing model. Any "dot-oh" operating system upgrade priced at $29 is simply amazing. And given the fact that you can upgrade a whole home or small office full of Macs for less than the price of an Xbox 360 game...well, that's just a special kind of awesome. The main OS competitor, however, has graciously offered its upgrade, similar in "just fixing stuff and making it run better" nature to Apple's update, at the low, low price of $129. Ouch! At least you can save a substantial amount by buying Microsoft's family pack at a tick under 150 bucks, but that discount will only get you three copies instead of Apple's five. And it's still three times the price of Snow Leopard's bundle!

But I realized something interesting about the whole "hardware company vs. software company" argument. As a Mac convert, I've noticed that I think quite a bit less about the hardware than I do the software. In the PC world I still live in, we talk about processor benchmarks, motherboard options, frontside bus speeds, and other Ambien replacements. However, when I talk Mac, I'm often concerned much more with the software it's running, what OS version is installed, and where I can find a free app to do what I need.

Wired Magazine's blog has a post about why Mac users may want to run Vista. Mac machines, it says, are great for running Vista, particularly with its demanding specifications. The author is a bit Wincentric, so take that into account while reading about how Vista makes OS X look "dated".

But think about it. We have Boot Camp and we have Parallels, so why put off upgrading to Vista? Being Mac users, it's far less of a risk because we can always retreat back to OS X to get the real work done if the new OS has problems. Virtual machines make it simple to try out different configurations and compartmentalize your work life--as if you owned many different computers at once. Sure, Apple's commercials may visualize "PC" as going to the hospital for major surgery to get his Vista upgrade, but for Mac users, it's as simple as adding a new virtual machine in Parallels.

Ever go shopping for OS X? There's the standard version, the server, and the family pack. And that's more or less about it. Vista? Not so much. As loyal TUAW reader Tyler pointed out, you can get the Ultimate version, the Premium version, the Home Premium version, the Business version, the Home Basic version, Additional Licence packs, the 64-bit Business Ultimate version for System Builders, the 32-bit Business Ultimate version for System Builders, the 64-bit Home Ultimate version for System Builders, and...

I'm sorry. I just can't go on. It's too overwhelming. And it goes on for page after expensive page after page after page on Amazon. So what does this tell you about Vista? And about Microsoft? The words unfocused and inefficient immediately spring to mind. They're spending way too much time creating distinctions that don't actually have a functional difference in the way that people actually use their computers, and which in the end will harm their brand identity.

Parallels has cranked out a 6th beta of their most excellent virtualizating Workstation software for Intel Macs. Fixes and improvements in this latest version include:

• USB fixes (more devices supported: PDA, scanner, etc.)
• Shared Folders fixes (added support for guest Windows 2000)
• Network improvements: host-only networking
• Custom video resolutions support added