Operating systems are platforms which unify distinct hardware under the one umbrella. What the user does with the system is up to the user. For example it seems that more people buy the PSP for media playback than gaming based off attach rates. Does that mean that the PSP doesn't count as a platform for gaming? In addition to this, as future consoles do far more than gaming as well then how do you categorise them?

The iTouch, Phone and soon Pad are the same ecosystem even though they are three distinct pieces of hardware. People have no trouble describing them as a unified platform and they have no problem with the idea that part of their appeal is the mobile games and apps you can get on all three. Windows mobile 7 is also fairly unified in terms of the hardware basis for the phones even if the manufacturers are distinctly different.

In the home operating system space, Microsoft seems to have spent considerable time and money developing their gaming related tools and APIs. Infact both the Xbox 360 and PS3 bear Microsofts influence in the design of their respective GPUs. Its no happy accident that a wide range of gaming does happen on the Microsoft system and people are aware that if they wish to play games they have to go Windows. How does this not add to their overall gaming 'presence'?

There are some differences between Windows and console platforms and, I believe, iTouch and iPhone. MS doesn't get any money from Windows games because there are no license fees for games. And MS has no control over who publishes games for Windows because anyone can release and sell games for Windows without permission from MS. MS only gets money from development tools, API's and OS sales. It doesn't matter if game would not even be released or it would sell 100 million copies or only pirates would download the game because MS would not get a penny from game sales. All money to MS comes indirectly from other sources. I am assuming this also applies to Windows mobile (could be wrong though). Only games from which MS gets money directly are games which MS has published and/or developed.

Apple mainly gets money from the hardware they sell and Microsoft mainly get money from the operating system they sell. Gaming is to sell operating systems for them so they still get a cut that way. Remember each copy of Windows is $50 or more in terms of revenue. That makes them a part of the gaming industry even if they do not directly interact with publishers or consumers.

But Microsoft sell Windows mostly to companies. End users either get it preinstalled (at a cost of $30-$50) or pirate it. Moreover Apple systems are much more locked in, you can't sell apps for the iPhone if you don't use the Apple dev-kits, while on the other hand you can use wathever you want on Windows.

(btw i played the last remnant and bioshock on linux, using wine...)

The idea of a physical box is dead. They sell platforms now. So the question of what particular hardware anything runs on is pretty irrelevant. The fact that 96% of all PC gaming is done on a Windows platform makes Microsoft a much bigger giant in gaming than Sony even if they don't have a direct involvement or a cut from games developed on the Windows platform. It doesn't matter whether they are involved directly or indirectly. Its still their platform and the gaming is still taking place there and in most cases its in exclusion of other platforms.

and most of the software it's pirated, they are still more games being developed for consoles and  handheld than windows platform

unless u count games like sweepmines, and flash games.

microsoft remaining markets are windows and office.

windows mobile failed, zune failed and 360 isn't first this gen either.

No no no, WAS 5x stronger, not is.