By now everyone's used to the iMac getting more than its share of recognition; after all, it's been the talk of the town ever since its surprise unveiling last May. But while it's easy to be jaded when hearing more praise for the little blue lump, you should try to take notice of its latest accomplishment, because it could mean Big Things™ for everyone's favorite consumer Mac. According to an Apple press release, the iMac has been chosen as this year's "Hottest Desktop Computer" by Computer Retail Week magazine.

Why is this distinction so important? Because it comes from the people in the trenches-- CRW polled "200 front-line retail sales people" to determine the results. This award doesn't come from a panel of CEOs or some group of designers saying that the iMac is what computers should be like; it comes from the people who are actually selling computers to people like you and me, and according to them, the iMac is where it's at. CRW's editor, Mark Harrington, implied that the iMac won the award hands down; it was "far and away the leading desktop choden by [their] sales associate readership, the key influencers in retail stores."

Of course, the recognition palls a bit when you hear what was awarded with the title "Best Software:" Windows 98. Yes, the same people who picked the iMac as the best computer of the year also decided that nothing deserved the title "Best Software" more than a package which reportedly consists of a collection of free bug fixes bundled together with a free web browser, sealed in a box, and emblazoned with a $99 price tag. Then again, it's selling like hotcakes, regularly topping the software sales charts-- so in that sense, we suppose the iMac should feel as if it's in good company. There's no accounting for taste, after all.

Reports continue to trickle in about the less-than-terrific performance of Best Buy's sales associates when it comes to selling iMacs. The latest incident to reach our ears involves a store employee who, when asked which scanner was appropriate for the iMac, had to go and look up the answer-- and returned claiming that the $179.99 Umax Astra 1200S was the one to buy. Close, but not quite; the 1200S is a SCSI scanner, and is therefore useless to an iMac owner. Perhaps with a bit more study, the Best Buy employee in question will answer the question correctly the next time around, and point the customer towards the Astra 1220U USB scanner instead. Hrmph.

Many of you thought it couldn't be possible, but it certainly seems that Best Buy's sales associates are even less Mac-savvy than than the average CompUSA employee. The good news, however, is that if the iMac's popularity continues, soon both companies may have little choice but to brush up on their Mac facts. Now that CompUSA's no longer the only national retailer in town (at least when it comes to the iMac), competition between CompUSA and Best Buy can mean only good things for the consumer with his or her eye on the iMac. We're already starting to see how this competition can benefit the buying public-- just take a look at the short article in Computer Retail Week about how CompUSA stole Best Buy's thunder during their inaugural iMac weekend.

As widely reported by faithful viewers, Best Buy was selling iMacs bundled with Epson printers for $1499 a pop; unfortunately for them, CompUSA did them one better by selling the iMac bundled with an Epson printer and an Astra 1220U scanner for only $1299 after rebates. CompUSA's "significantly" better deal decidedly "marred" Best Buy's iMac sales figures. If Best Buy wants a piece of the iMac pie, they're going to have to try harder-- and that may mean, among other things, making sure their staff is trained to answer Mac-specific questions. And if Best Buy really does start to shape up, then CompUSA will have to do something else to keep from being eclipsed. See? Isn't competition wonderful?

Legal Question of the Week: when you're the CEO of the world's most influential software company and said company is on trial for alleged antitrust behavior, is it a bad thing when the judge laughs at you? Yeah, we thought so. Welcome to Week Five of "Redmond Justice," and while it has become increasingly clear lately that the judge is losing all patience with Microsoft, it might be a positive sign that he's retaining his sense of humor. (Positive sign for whom, you ask? That's left as an exercise for the viewer.) David Boies, the government's black-Niked legal eagle, showed more videotape of Bill Gates' August deposition today, and the results were comical; Gates tried really hard to duck the questions about his company's plans to crush Netscape, but his evasive maneuvers prompted laughter from the court-- Judge Jackson included. A Bloomberg News article has more details.

If you think it was inappropriate for the judge to laugh during the introduction of the evidence in question, you may be right; but Judge Jackson can hardly be blamed, since the taped exchange between Boies and Gates could coax a giggle from a clinically-depressed fuzzy-hatted Buckingham Palace guard with lockjaw. We wish we could have been there, as we suspect that one hasn't truly lived until one has heard the world's richest man quibble with a lawyer over the definitions of the words "concern," "compete," and "we." No fooling. For instance, when Boies asked Gates which "non-Microsoft browsers" he meant when he composed a particular email message in January of 1996, Gates' response was-- and we quote-- "I'm sure -- what's the question? Is it -- are you asking me about when I wrote this e-mail or what are you asking me about?" Er, yeah. And believe it or not, it actually gets worse from there.

We're assuming that Microsoft's team of lawyers is really looking forward to putting this whole episode behind them and focusing on the next hurdle-- namely, the testimony of Glenn Weadock, the president of Independent Software, Inc. and the government's next witness. Weadock is testifying that Internet Explorer's "integration" into Windows harms consumers, and presents the Microsoft defense team with a solvable problem to tackle. Much simpler than trying to explain the baffling behavior of your chief executive...