There are “universal” remotes that are designed to let you operate multiple electronics devices from a single control. But most universal remotes, if you can figure out how to work them at all, don’t help much with the tedious sequence of button pushes often required to do simple tasks, like watch a movie. In my case, just turning on the TV can require up to six punches on two different remotes, depending on what activity I happened to be doing on my home-theater system the last time I shut it off.

Logitech International, the Swiss computer-accessory maker, has come up with an answer to the problems of remote-control clutter and excessive button-pushing with its family of Harmony universal remote controls that are relatively affordable and easy to use.

The Harmony 1000

I tested two of the latest models of Logitech remotes, the Harmony 890 and 1000, and found that they greatly simplified using my home-theater system, despite a few flaws.

It’s a challenge just getting many universal remotes working, considering all of the electronics gear that occupy many TV rooms. The setup usually involves punching arcane codes into a universal remote corresponding to your electronics devices after looking the numbers up in a manual — a tedious process with lots of opportunity for failure.

Users configure Harmony remotes through what I found to be a far more user-friendly process: by tethering them to a Mac or Windows PC with a USB cable. A software program that comes with the remotes asks users what types of devices they’d like to set up, such as a home-theater receiver, a television set and a digital video recorder. Users will need the model number for their devices.

Once you’ve entered the model numbers into the Harmony program, the software automatically downloads all of the commands required to configure the remote so it works with your TV-room gadgets from an online Logitech database containing more than 200,000 devices — far more than you’d find listed in the manual for a conventionally programmed universal remote control. The Harmony software easily located all of my devices in its database.

An important feature of the Harmony remotes is something called activities, which lets users reduce to one the multiple button pushes typically required to do basic functions with their entertainment systems, such as watching a DVD. Logitech didn’t invent this concept, but it has made the setup process easy enough so users don’t have to hire a professional installer to do it for them, as is the case with many other high-end universal remote controls.

Based on the types of devices I told it I had, the Harmony software on the PC recommended a handful of activities for my remote controls, including “Watch TV,” “Watch a DVD,” and “Listen to CDs.”

To watch a DVD on my entertainment system, I normally need to turn on my TV and set it to the correct video input source, turn on my home theater receiver (which I use to play audio when watching movies) and turn on my Xbox 360 game console (through which I play DVDs) — a process that requires up to seven button pushes on multiple remote controls.

The Harmony remotes eventually allowed me to push one button to turn on all of these devices, but there were hiccups. When I hit the “Watch DVD” activity button, the Harmony remotes initially turned on all of my devices except the Xbox 360. After a few minutes exploring the Harmony software on the PC, I was able to change a setting to correct the problem and update the remote.

In all, it took me about 30 minutes to configure the first Logitech remote I used, the Harmony 1000, and half that time for the Harmony 890, after I had become familiar with the process.

The two models of remotes offered similar functions but in radically different industrial designs. The Harmony 1000 is a tablet-shape control about the size of a small picture frame, with a large touch-sensitive color screen that displays large buttons for accessing activities and other functions on your devices. The Harmony 890 is a more conventional wand-shape remote with a smaller screen.

I preferred the design of the Harmony 890, finding it easier and more natural to use with one hand, not to mention a better value. I have found the Harmony 1000 selling for as low as $272 and the Harmony 890 for $222 on Amazon.com. The 890 comes with a kit that lets you extend the range of the remote by using radio frequency, instead of infrared, signals.

Both Harmony remotes, though, made it much easier for me to use my entertainment system and cleaned up some of the clutter in my living room.

Walt Mossberg is on vacation.

Write to Nick Wingfield at nick.wingfield@wsj.com

But in the past few years, Apple has mounted a sneak attack on the Windows world. Its weapon has been the Windows version of iTunes, the free media organizing, recording and playback program that most people think of as just a companion to Apple’s iPod music and video players. I think of iTunes as the most subversive software on the Windows computer, not because it does users any harm or does anything underhanded, but because it is allowing Apple to subvert, from inside, Microsoft’s dominant platform position.

That’s because iTunes is much more than a companion to the iPod, much more than a media playback program and even more than a front door to Apple’s online download service. It’s a sort of miniplatform hiding right within Windows that allows Apple and other companies to connect a host of hardware and software, and to create media-sharing networks without engaging with Windows itself or with Microsoft’s built-in Windows Media Player.

There are way more copies of iTunes installed than were bundled with Apple’s 100 million or so iPods. In fact, at last week’s D: All Things Digital conference, Apple CEO Steve Jobs estimated more than 300 million copies of iTunes were installed. Many people download and use iTunes to play music and video, and to purchase media, for use on their computers, even if they don’t own iPods.

And the vast majority of iTunes installations, probably 90% or more, are on Windows computers, not Macs. Ironically, that makes Apple, Microsoft’s ancient rival, one of the biggest software developers for Windows.

Many people don’t realize that every time they install iTunes on a Windows PC, they also are installing Apple networking software called Bonjour, which operates independently from the Microsoft built-in network software controlled from the Windows Control Panel. This Apple network layer isn’t harmful and doesn’t interfere with the Microsoft networking functions. It’s designed to allow iTunes users to share their music.

Out of the box, each copy of iTunes looks for other shared iTunes music libraries on your local network. It doesn’t share your library unless you authorize it to do so. The user merely has to go into iTunes’ Preferences function (under the Edit menu in the Windows version), click on the Sharing tab and select “Share my library on my local network.” You can choose to share your entire library or just selected playlists. You can require people to enter a password to gain access, or not. You can also turn off the function that allows you to see others’ libraries.

If you use Sharing, you’ll see in iTunes’ left-hand panel a list of shared libraries on other iTunes-equipped computers on your local network, whether they reside on Windows or Macintosh computers. Clicking on these libraries allows you to play the songs they contain. It doesn’t allow you to transfer the song files among the computers.

In many homes, offices and college dorms, iTunes users have access to numerous libraries on nearby computers. For instance, as I write this on a Mac laptop in my home office, I am playing a song that resides on a Windows Vista desktop PC in another room. To achieve this feat, I didn’t have to fiddle with the often confusing network settings in the Windows Control Panel or in the Mac’s similar System Preferences program. I just had to use iTunes on both machines and click a couple of buttons.

In effect, each copy of iTunes, with the user’s permission, broadcasts a sort of beacon that signals its presence to other copies of iTunes on a local network, regardless of the operating system underneath. It makes the operating system irrelevant.

This independent iTunes networking capability goes way beyond sharing music among computers. A modified version of this function is what allows Apple’s new Apple TV product to fetch all the music and videos from all the computers in your house and play them back through your TV set — even if all those computers are Windows machines. It could also allow Apple’s forthcoming iPhone to wirelessly stream music and videos from computers on a local network, if Apple chose to build in such a function.

And the use of iTunes as a platform goes even beyond this networking ability. Small companies have released a slew of programs, such as iLike, last.FM, Mog and Nutsie, that read the iTunes library, with your permission. They use this information to determine your musical tastes and suggest new songs to try, to connect people with similar tastes, or to allow you to listen to your songs over the Internet.

Microsoft, its hardware partners and other third-party companies have achieved similar feats with other music programs and with hardware such as Xbox game consoles using similar sharing technologies. But the popularity of iTunes, and Apple’s position as Microsoft’s rival, makes the iTunes platform far more significant — and interesting.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

This isn’t Microsoft’s first effort to stop the iPod, but it’s the first for which the software giant is adopting Apple’s own business and design model — where one company makes and controls the hardware, software and online component, and tightly integrates them. The Zune is produced by Microsoft’s Xbox group, which builds game consoles on that same end-to-end principle.

Microsoft’s Zune comes in black, white or brown.

In its first incarnation, the Zune comes in only one version, a big, chunky $249 model that can hold 30 gigabytes of music, videos and photos. I’ve been testing the Zune for the past couple of weeks and comparing it with the most similar of Apple’s six iPod models — the smaller of the two full-size iPods, which also holds 30 gigabytes and also costs $249.

Zune has several nice features the iPod lacks: a larger screen, the ability to exchange songs with other Zunes wirelessly and a built-in FM radio. It solves the worst problem that plagued earlier Microsoft-based music players — frequent failures to synchronize properly music and videos between the players and personal computers. Synchronization on the Zune is smooth and sure.

Also, the Zune player and software have a very good user interface, different from, but in some cases easier to use than, the iPod’s. While it lacks the famous iPod scroll wheel, instead using a common four-way navigation pad, I found song lists easy to navigate on the Zune. It has only a few buttons and is quite intuitive to use. To my ears, it sounded as good as the iPod.

But, this first Zune has too many compromises and missing features to be as good a choice as the iPod for most users. The hardware feels rushed and incomplete. It is 60% larger and 17% heavier than the comparable iPod. It has much worse battery life for music than the iPod or than Microsoft claims — at least two hours less than the iPod’s, in my tests. Despite the larger screen, many album covers look worse than they do on the iPod. And you can’t share music libraries between computers like you can with iTunes.

Zune’s online store offers far fewer songs, just over two million, compared with 3.5 million for the iTunes store. In fact, as of this writing, songs from one of the big labels, Universal, were missing from Zune Marketplace, though Microsoft says it is confident it will have all the major labels when it launches Zune on Tuesday. Also, despite the player’s capability, Zune Marketplace offers none of the TV shows, movies or music videos that iTunes does, and has no audiobooks or podcasts.

Even worse, to buy even a single 99-cent song from the Zune store, you have to purchase blocks of “points” from Microsoft, in increments of at least $5. You can’t just click and have the 99 cents deducted from a credit card, as you can with iTunes. You must first add points to your account, then buy songs with these points. So, even if you are buying only one song, you have to allow Microsoft, one of the world’s richest companies, to hold on to at least $4.01 of your money until you buy another. And the point system is deceptive. Songs are priced at 79 points, which some people might think means 79 cents. But 79 points actually cost 99 cents.

Unlike iTunes, Zune offers subscription plans, where you can get an unlimited numbers of songs for $15 a month. However, Microsoft is de-emphasizing this option and mostly positioning Zune Marketplace as a source of individually purchased songs and albums.

Some consumers may well choose Zune for its big screen, which looks great with photos and videos, for its wireless song swapping, or for its FM-radio capability, which requires a $50 accessory on the iPod. Others may favor Zune because they are as tired of Apple’s dominance in music as some folks are of Microsoft’s dominance in computers.

But Zune has only around 100 accessories at launch, versus 3,000 or more for the iPod. If you have any iPod-specific accessories, they won’t work on the Zune. Also, none of the songs you may have purchased from Apple will play on the Zune, unless you undertake a laborious conversion process. Apple is rumored to be working on an all-new iPod with a screen as large or larger than the Zune’s.

Zune marks an unusual turn for Microsoft. The company is abandoning its favored business model, where it builds software platforms and then lets other companies make a wide variety of products that use that platform. Instead, Microsoft is building and totally controlling the whole chain associated with the product: the hardware, the software and the online music store. Songs sold on Zune Marketplace are intended to play only on the Zune, and Zune players won’t be able to play copy-protected songs bought elsewhere, even at other online stores that use Microsoft music formats.

Microsoft was driven to this approach because its platform model, so successful with personal computers, has failed miserably in the music category. Apple has simply rolled over all the hardware companies and online stores that were built around Microsoft’s previous music system, called “PlaysForSure.”

Zune comes in three colors: black and white, like the comparable iPod, and brown, a daring color for a consumer-electronics device, but one that has become popular in the fashion world. Each model also has a second color on a translucent band around its edge; the brown one is trimmed in green.

Placing the Zune next to the 30-gigabyte iPod provides a strong contrast. The iPod is thin, sleek and elegant looking. The Zune looks big and blocky, sort of like a prototype for a gadget, rather than a finished product. It is longer, thicker and heavier than even the 80-gigabyte iPod, which has more than twice its capacity.

Zune was adapted from a much-praised but slight-selling music player, the Toshiba Gigabeat, in order to get it to market more quickly.

The word “Microsoft” never appears anywhere on the Zune, only the new Zune logo and a cheeky, “Hello from Seattle” in tiny type at the bottom of the back of the device. The Zune’s tag line, evident immediately when you open the box, is “Welcome to the Social,” a phrase meant to stress the device’s wireless song-sharing feature, and to reach out to the Zune’s target market, young music lovers who build social relationships around favorite songs and artists.

But the wireless music-sharing feature on the Zune is heavily compromised, in a way that is bound to annoy the very audience it is targeting. Each song sent to your Zune from another Zune can be played only three times and is available for playing for only three days. After that, it dies and can’t be played again unless you buy it. Even if you play the song only halfway through, or for one minute, that counts as one of your three allowed plays. In fact, in my tests, a song I sent to my assistant’s Zune expired after only two plays, one of which lasted just a few seconds. Microsoft attributed that to a bug that it said would be fixed.

The Zune’s other big plus, the big screen, is similarly compromised. While it is three inches versus 2.5 inches for the iPod’s screen, it uses the same resolution. That combination can make images coarser and grainier. In my tests, on photos and videos, this didn’t matter much, and the Zune did a good job, even automatically switching into horizontal screen mode. But images of album covers often looked fuzzy, grainy and even distorted on the Zune when compared with how they looked on the iPod.

And for a product that’s all about “the Social,” Zune is curiously lacking a very popular iTunes feature — the ability to view and to listen to another user’s music library over a local network. This iTunes feature works in homes, office, college dorms, hotels, and other places, and it functions in mixed groups of Windows and Macintosh computers. But with the new Zune software, you can share your library only with Xbox game consoles, not other computers.

On the plus side, I really liked the interface on the Zune. In some modes, it allows you to do things with fewer clicks than the iPod does. For instance, if you are browsing through music, you don’t have to go back a step to switch from, say, a list of artists to a list of albums. Those choices are arrayed at the top of the screen and can be selected with a sideways push of the navigation pad.

Also, the entire interface is more colorful and visually satisfying than the iPod’s. Lists of albums are accompanied by thumbnails of their covers. Menus zoom in and out, and some are translucent. You can also select your own photo as the wallpaper or background for the device. But, unlike on the iPod, you can’t customize the main menu or go to “Now Playing,” or shuffle all songs with one click.

The Zune software also has a handsome look and feel. And it allows you to “guest synchronize” a Zune on another computer, something iTunes doesn’t allow. You can load songs from someone else’s library onto your Zune without wiping out your own library, though you can’t then transfer those songs back to your own PC.

But battery life on the Zune was very disappointing. Microsoft claims 14 hours of music playback on a single charge with the wireless feature turned off — the same as the comparable iPod — and 13 hours with wireless turned on. But Microsoft bases these claims on strict and unnatural usage conditions, such as never increasing the default volume, playing only one album over and over, and keeping the backlight on for just one second.

I tested the Zune in more normal conditions, shuffling through hundreds of songs, adjusting the volume where needed, skipping or repeating songs occasionally and using a 30-second backlight. In my test, I got just 12 hours and 18 minutes of music playback, versus 14 hours and 44 minutes from an iPod under the same usage pattern. With the wireless turned on, battery life on the Zune was worse — just 10 hours and 12 minutes, even though I didn’t send or receive any songs.

Overall, the iPod and iTunes are still the champs. Still, I expect the Zune to attract some converts and to get better with time. And this kind of competition from a big company with deep pockets and lots of talent is good for consumers in the long run.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.

In the component model, many companies make hardware and software that run on a standard platform, creating inexpensive commodity devices that don’t always work perfectly together, but get the job done. In the end-to-end model, one company designs both the hardware and software, which work smoothly together, but the products cost more and limit choice.

In the first war between these models, the war for dominance of the personal-computer market, Microsoft’s approach won decisively. Aided by efficient assemblers like Dell, and by corporate IT departments employed to integrate the components, Microsoft’s component-based Windows platform crushed Apple’s end-to-end Macintosh platform.

But in the post-PC era we’re in today, where the focus is on things like music players, game consoles and cellphones, the end-to-end model is the early winner. Tightly linking hardware, software and Web services propelled Apple to a huge success with its iPod. Microsoft, meanwhile, has struggled to make its component model work on these devices and, in a telling sign, is using the Apple end-to-end model itself in its Xbox game-console business. Now, Apple is working on other projects built on the same end-to-end model as the iPod: a media-playing cellphone and a home-media hub.

The jury is still out on whether the end-to-end model will prevail in the long term. Many at Microsoft, and some outside analysts as well, believe the new devices will eventually succumb to the component model, and that Apple’s success with the iPod will fade, just as its early dominance of the PC market did. Apple officials say history won’t repeat itself if the company continues to make great products and avoid the business blunders committed by its past management.

I think the end-to-end model can prevail this time, both for Apple and other companies. Consumers want choice and low prices. But they also crave the kind of simplicity and integration that the end-to-end model delivers best.

Sure, you can get more variety in music players and in online music services if you opt for the Microsoft-based music instead of the iPod system. But the iPod, Apple’s iTunes software, and the iTunes Music Store work so well together that users can just relax and enjoy the music. By contrast, the hodgepodge of players, software and online music stores on the Microsoft side frequently have trouble synchronizing between computers and players. Apple sells as many or more songs than the many stores that use Microsoft software.

Critics attack the iPod and iTunes as “closed” and “proprietary,” because the songs Apple sells at its iTunes Music Store play only on iPods, and iPods can’t play songs purchased from other music stores. But both the iPod and iTunes handle the two most common open audio formats, MP3 and WAV, and the most common open video format, MP4. They work well even if you never buy a song from Apple. And iTunes and the iPod work on Windows computers, not just Macs. So how is that closed?

Even the Mac isn’t as closed as its critics charge. It’s still designed to work with Apple’s own operating system and software. But it can handle all the common files Windows uses, can network with Windows machines, and can use all of the common Windows printers, scanners, keyboards and mice. The Mac gives you the same access to the Internet as Windows. Heck, the newest Macs can even run Windows itself.

You do get a choice of more software with Windows. And that’s great for hard-core gamers and users of corporate, or niche, software. But for mainstream users doing typical tasks, the Windows choice advantage is illusory. Mac users can choose among thousands of third-party programs, including multiple Web browsers, word processors and email programs. They can run Mac versions of popular software like Microsoft Office and the Firefox browser. How much more choice do you need?

Microsoft is hedging its bets. It has, in effect, created a little Apple inside Microsoft with the Xbox group. The Xbox team shunned Windows and wrote its own operating system and user interface, and built its own hardware. (The new Xbox was even developed using Macintosh computers.)

Some Microsoft officials dismiss this anomaly by claiming that the game-console business is a special case. But now, Microsoft has assigned the Xbox team to create a portable music player it hopes can knock off the iPod. Why? Because the company is frustrated that the component model, which separates hardware and software, has failed in the music market. It’s looking for more integration.

Still, the end-to-end model isn’t a lock. If Apple can’t keep churning out cool products at reasonable prices, it could crash and burn. Unlike Microsoft, it doesn’t have much help from other companies to succeed. But the iPod experience has shown that the PC model may not be best for all digital devices.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.