The reviews and press coverage of Microsoft's long-awaited release of Microsoft Vista have been interesting for this particular Mac-centric writer to watch. Many reviewers laud the new features and eye candy in Vista, saying it runs particularly well on new PCs that can handle its hefty hardware requirements. Just as often, however, the suggestion is to wait before upgrading. Sometimes the recommendation is to wait until you buy a new machine that comes with Vista pre-loaded.

One interesting pundit to track has been ComputerWorld (http://www.computerworld.com) editor Scot Finnie, who has used the Vista launch period as a time to let his users know that he's moving to a Mac and Mac OS X for his day-to-day computing. He's opted for the 17-inch MacBook Pro, which he says will permanently replace the ThinkPad T60 he had used prior to the trial-run switch to the Mac he made as part of a three-part article series exploring the feasibility of using a Mac in a PC-centric workplace.

What's interesting to me about his experience in switching is how important Apple's transition to Intel processors in Macintosh computers has been. The fact that a MacBook can run Windows applications on the Mac OS X desktop thanks to Parallels (http://www.parallels.com), which can actually boot a copy of Windows XP in a window and allow you to work with Windows and Mac applications side-by-side, is key for many PC users. For applications that he's married to, such as Web editor HomeSite (http://www.abobe.com/products/homesite/), Finnie continues to use the Windows version on his Mac, thanks to Parallels.

Is Finnie's move a harbinger of things to come? Clearly, he's a techie guy, so he's willing to leap through a few hoops to make his Mac experience work out the way he wants. But the switch to Intel processors for Macs—which, quite frankly, I was once worried could end up killing the Mac as a unique platform—has enabled some of these "switcher" stories and may very well mean the Mac is welcomed by more IT departments in the corporate world.

Meanwhile, on the flip-side of the Vista drama, Apple has been criticized recently for some glitches in Vista compatibility in the PC edition of iTunes. Some bloggers have suggested that Apple may have been trying to use its clout in the digital music business to put a damper on the Windows Vista launch by updating iTunes slowly; Windows-based iPod devotees are going to be less likely to update quickly to Vista, the theory goes, if iTunes isn't yet fully functional. Whether this is marketing warfare or just a slow response from Apple isn't clear; but Mac OS X users, of course, are able to use their iPods and iTunes without interruption. Perhaps the slow updates for Vista are a gambit of some sort.

Apple has released an iTunes Repair Tool for Vista that reportedly makes it possible for Vista users to play their iTunes Store purchases, something that apparently wasn't happening in all cases prior to Feb. 1. At the same time, however, Apple has publicly warned iTunes users to consider holding off on a Vista upgrade.

There is no doubt that Apple is marketing overtly against Vista; in its latest "PC and Mac" ad, called "Surgery" , the "PC," in a hospital gown, tells the "Mac" that he's headed in for surgery so that he can be upgraded to run Windows Vista. In an emotional exchange, he tells the "Mac" that he wants him to "have his peripherals" if he doesn't come back from the upgrades.

It's cute, but perhaps more interestingly, it elicited an angry response from Microsoft's Bill Gates, who, in a recent interview with Steven Levy of Newsweek, took a few shots at Apple for running the ad (after telling Levy he hadn't seen it). "Well, certainly we've done a better job letting you upgrade on the hardware than our competitors have done," Gates said. "You can choose to buy a new machine, or you can choose to do an upgrade. And I don't know why (Apple is) acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say? Does honesty matter in these things, or if you're really cool, that means you get to be a lying person whenever you feel like it? There's not even the slightest shred of truth to it."

Levy then asks Gates to respond to the many reviews of Vista that are pointing out Vista features that seem to borrow from features already available in Mac OS X. Gates' response: "I mean, it's fascinating, maybe we shouldn't have showed so publicly the stuff we were doing, because we knew how long the new security base was going to take us to get done. Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit; your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine. So, yes, it took us longer, and they had what we were doing, user interface-wise."

The implication seems to be that Apple has been incrementally adding features to Mac OS X for the past seven years—such as the Dock, Dashboard, iPhoto and windows-management features—that they saw in Vista betas. Hmm.

Gates, in criticizing Apple security, might be referring to a project called "Month of Apple Bugs" , where security exploits in Mac OS X were discovered and posted every day from Jan. 1 to Jan. 31. According to some watchers, the exploits were serious concerns, but only one of them could actually cause a Mac to be taken down without user interaction (such as launching a strange downloaded file, a common exploit in Windows XP), and it was fixed via a downloadable Apple security update on Jan. 23.

Gates clearly seems to have spun into hyperbole here, perhaps feeling the heat of Apple's David-vs-Goliath marketing messages. I wonder if "Pirates of Silicon Valley 2" has been green-lighted in Hollywood, yet?

The burning question remains, though: Should XP users upgrade to Vista? The consensus seems to be that Windows XP is fine for day-to-day use on most existing PCs, so you can wait for the bugs to shake out of Vista; alternatively, if you buy a new PC with Windows Vista, you'll be happy with many of the changes.

According to Finnie, however, the biggest problem that Windows Vista has isn't that it isn't a good operating system—it is. Finnie's complaint is essentially that Microsoft seemed to have focused its Vista efforts too much on answering its PR problems (like the widely criticized security issues in XP) and in ensuring every dollar of profitability from the upgrade. In another article by Finnie called "The Trouble with Vista," he notes that the $259 upgrade price for the most featured-filled Vista version ($399 for a new install) is "a lot of money for an operating system."

"Despite the welcome improvements in Vista, using the product just isn't exciting or intriguing any longer," writes Finnie. "It's at least two years later than it should have been, and I don't absolutely have to have it. You don't either."