So just what is it about the iMac that seems to have struck a chord with consumers? When we sat down with our own to answer that question, we figured a lot of its appeal had to do with with its space-age, non-traditional look. There's also its breakthrough speed, its low price, its astonishing ease of use, and its sheer inviting quality that just says "Hey-- c'mon, let's play." Imagine our surprise, then, to discover that none of these factors contributed even slightly to the iMac's overwhelming success. At least, according to the Onion.

Apparently, most iMac buyers are attracted equally by the system's three keyboards and the way that it "produces pitch-perfect tones with filled halfway with water and rubbed with a moist finger." (Something to try when you're tired of playing Myth, perhaps.) Among other contributing factors were its physical bounciness, spiritual alignment with Gandhi, Picasso, and Einstein, and its reportedly uncanny resemblance to the Coors Party Ball. It just goes to show that market research data sometimes reveals some real surprises. The factors of market success are strange and complex, indeed.

We're grateful to the Onion for pointing all this out to us, because if we hadn't seen their data, we would never have known that our iMac is missing some standard features (and no, we're not whining about a floppy drive). Apparently we were short-changed a couple of keyboards, and we can't figure out where the snooze button is-- even the Apple Tech Info Library has no info on it. But aside from that, we're thrilled with our purchase-- especially now that we know it's bathtub-safe. We imagine there's nothing more relaxing than playing 3D Klondike while soaking in a nice hot bath. (Note: it's a joke. No, the iMac isn't bathtub-safe. Don't haul your iMac into the tub or you'll likely both wind up fried. Just a clarification for the irony-impaired, as recommended by our legion of swarthy lawyers.)

What a difference a name makes, especially when it comes to operating systems. We've seen some really interesting choices in recent years, the latest of which is Microsoft's decision to change the name of Windows NT 5.0. When the operating system ships next year (so they claim), it'll actually be named "Windows 2000." More on this utterly predictable move is available in a Sm@rt Reseller article.

Take note, all of you who have to work with NT; Windows 2000, as it's now called, will ship in three configurations: "Professional," which is equivalent to NT workstation, "Server," which is analogous to (surprisingly enough) NT Server, and "Advanced Server," which is the new name for NT Server Enterprise. Microsoft wouldn't say how much these new products would cost, only noting that prices "would not deviate much from current NT 4.0 pricing." Meaning, most likely, that customer will only have to pay a little more for the shiny new naming scheme-- but it'll be a small price to pay for a naming convention that "makes it easier for customers to choose among products," right? (Okay, so we're not being entirely fair-- Windows 2000 will be quite a step up from NT 4.0. For starters, it'll supposed be fully Year 2000 compliant. And yes, if you're an NT 4.0 user, you'll have to pay to get that full compliance.)

That isn't to say that Apple isn't the king of operating system name games, though. After all, remember Copland? "Copland" was of course just the code name of the OS, which was eventually officially-- and publicly-- named "Mac OS 8." Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at things) Copland was unceremoniously canceled when it became plainly obvious that the project could never stand on its own two legs. Apple, in a brilliant marketing move, changed what Mac OS 8 was supposed to be; instead of Copland, we got a new revision of System 7 with a facelift and more PPC-native code. The renaming was also a brilliant (if sleazy) negotiations maneuver, which Apple used to its advantage to kill the cloners, whose licenses didn't cover "Mac OS 8." But we've still got a copy of a book about programming for Mac OS 8, which makes all sorts of references to Copland features like protected memory and preemptive multitasking that simply don't exist in the "real" Mac OS 8. Suppose it'll ever be a collector's item?

Finally, a new cast member gets some "Redmond Justice" airtime-- and veteran Jim Barksdale gets a much needed Gatorade break following his marathon cross-examination by Microsoft attorney John Warden. This time it's America Online senior vice president David Colburn on the stand, testifying that AOL agreed to bundle Internet Explorer as its default browser way back in March of 1996 because they feared that if they didn't, Microsoft would shut them out of the market entirely. Plenty of details are available in an Inter@ctive Week Online article.

According to Colburn, AOL's decision to go with Microsoft's browser over Netscape's "wasn't driven by technological considerations." That is, of course, a diplomatic way of saying that they went with what they consider to be the suckier browser. The reason, says Colburn, is because AOL-- even though they had eight million subscribers-- was scared to death that all of that could go out the window overnight since Microsoft had just launched its rival online service, MSN. Since Microsoft controls Windows, and Windows is on something like over 90% of the desktop computer systems out there, it's easy to see why AOL was nervous; sure, AOL floppies were ubiquitous (we still find them wedged behind the desk and under uneven chair legs), but if Microsoft's competing service suddenly showed up pre-loaded and pre-configured on every Wintel system sold, it wouldn't be too difficult for Microsoft to wipe out AOL in much the same way that they've been wiping out Netscape. Unless AOL played nice.

So allegedly, this is just another case in which Internet Explorer was endorsed by a company based not on the browser's technical merits, but because Microsoft could crush the company if they didn't cooperate. (It all sounds mighty familiar just one day after reading Apple CFO Fred Anderson's apologetic note to Netscape's Barksdale, which reveals similar motives for making IE the default browser for the Mac OS.) In fact, AOL had actually already signed a non-exclusive deal with Netscape to include the Navigator browser with the AOL software-- except the very next day they then inked a deal with Microsoft guaranteeing that Internet Explorer would be used by no less than 85% of AOL's subscribers. Why? So that Microsoft would include AOL in the "Online Services" folder of Windows 95. Without that exposure, their market share would likely have dropped drastically over time-- or so Colburn claims. While it's hard to think of AOL as any kind of victim, at the very least it's an interesting perspective.