COMMENTARY--Is Microsoft going to kill Apple Computer? Some may say it's already happened, at least from looking at the relative dominance of Windows over Apple's Mac OS. But I'm talking about Microsoft pulling the plug on Office and Internet Explorer for Mac OS.

Is this actually going to happen? I don't think so. Apple CEO Steve Jobs doesn't think it will happen, or so he said during a meeting I had with him last week to discuss this and other topics. I've heard the same from the people at Microsoft who develop the Mac applications.

BECAUSE OF A CONTRACT
between Microsoft and Apple that runs out this summer, I think it's very important for Microsoft to make a clear statement about its commitment to Apple products. And since Microsoft's support of Mac OS is sometimes viewed as an extension of its antitrust defence, a formal commitment becomes even more essential. If Microsoft is going to continue to support Mac OS, going on the record shouldn't be a problem, right?

Microsoft also needs to promise--and this is what I am really hoping for--to do a better job of supporting core technologies such as .Net, as well as the user experience across the two platforms.

The current arrangement between Microsoft and Apple dates back to 1997. As part of what amounted to the settlement of lawsuits Apple had filed against Microsoft--and was winning--Microsoft invested US$150 million in Apple and promised to continue developing Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, and development tools for Mac OS until August 2002.

MICROSOFT SHOULD NOW SAY
--in writing and ideally in the form of a contract--that this support will continue over the next five years. This is important, because many people--myself included--believe Microsoft Office is an essential application, one that drives Macintosh sales.

And this time, Microsoft needs to go even further and expand its Mac OS support, because aside from Office, Microsoft's Mac support, well, sucks.

Here's my list of areas where Microsoft should improve.

• Media player.
  Yes, there is a Windows Media Player for Mac OS X. And I can even get over that it's little more than a player and lacks much of the functionality of the XP version. But could Microsoft at least provide all the codecs? Right now, only some are available--meaning I can listen to some Windows Media streams, but not terribly many.

• Pocket PC compatibility.
  Currently there is no way to synchronize Pocket PC devices with anything on a Mac. A third-party developer is working on such an application, but if Microsoft really cares about the Mac, it'll create a Mac version of ActiveSync on its own.

• Palm compatibility.
  Microsoft is also taking its time in building a new conduit that will allow Palms to sync with its Mac products. At this moment, I know of no way whatsoever to sync a Palm device with Microsoft products operating on Mac OS X. Even importing a file doesn't work from Palm Desktop.

• Web authoring.
  No Web authoring tool for the Mac supports Microsoft FrontPage extensions. While I appreciate there isn't a market for FrontPage for Mac, perhaps Microsoft could convince some other developer to support its extensions.

• .Net.
  If Microsoft is developing a .Net client for Macintosh, they are keeping it very hush-hush.

• Messenger.
  Microsoft Messenger for the Mac lacks the multimedia features in the newest Windows versions. How long will it be until they arrive on the Mac? Or will they ever? Mac users ought to be able to video and audio conference with Windows users.

• Exchange.
  Accessing a Microsoft Exchange server from Mac OS is best done using a Web browser (if your server supports Outlook Web Access). The Mac-only version of Outlook runs on Mac OS 9.x and supports only Exchange servers, which means people with Exchange and non-Exchange accounts have to run multiple e-mail clients. There's nothing especially bad about using Outlook Web Access--actually, it's quite pleasant--but being forced to do so keeps Mac users second-class citizens.

Microsoft has taken the attitude that its Mac Office programs should share file formats and many features with the Windows programs. Yet the Mac team often goes off in its own direction when it comes to designing the user interface and specific features. I have not found this to be a problem--even if it means Mac's major e-mail/calendar/contact management application is called Entourage and not Outlook.

THERE ARE MOST DEFINITELY
some function and feature differences between Mac Office and Office XP (no task panes on Mac, for example), but the Mac version is still a first-class product. In some ways, I've grown to prefer Mac Office to Office XP, although it's hard to say why. In general, I find it difficult to compare my experiences with Mac OS to Windows XP. It's like trying to explain why some people like redheads more than blondes--it's just personal preference.

Still, Microsoft should commit to providing all its core functionality and features on a cross-platform basis. That doesn't mean Microsoft needs to create a bunch of new Mac versions of its applications--although that would be nice. Rather, Microsoft should promise that Mac users of .Net and Microsoft's calendars, e-mail, contact managers, Web browsers, media players, instant messaging, media authoring, and other core technologies will have the same functionality as their Windows kin.

The reason Microsoft should put this on paper is because of legitimate concerns that its interest in Macintosh is more a ploy in its antitrust battles ("Look, we support multiple platforms!") than a real interest in serving Mac users. And the sooner Microsoft reaffirms this commitment--and expands it as I've outlined above--the better for Mac users, both present and future.

Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive, a CBS Company. All Rights Reserved.
ZDNET is a registered service mark of CBS Interactive. ZDNET Logo is a service mark of CBS Interactive.