You know, it's funny, but on occasion we've actually been accused of undue skepticism regarding Swedish-based Xtrem, Inc. Now, really, what possible reason could we have for being skeptical of a company claiming to be working on a single-processor 1200 MHz G4-based Mac clone, when the only proof offered at its web site is a 3D rendering of an oversized microphone? After all, it's not like the company has never shipped a product; its MacThrust™ G3/G4 surfaced last October, barely three months past its "end of July" ship date; so what if it's just a $60 set of jumper blocks? So the reports are wrong, people-- we've got nothing but faith in Xtrem and its 1200 MHz XtremMac. Okay, sure, it was originally supposed to ship by the end of last year, and it didn't. Then it was supposed to ship by the end of January for $2000, and that didn't happen either. But it's not like Xtrem has since downgraded the product's specs after capitalizing on all the publicity, right?

Ow... we just pulled a sarcasm tendon. Remind us to stretch next time. Anyway, here's the scoop: faithful viewer Anders Westholm notes that Xtrem's web page now boasts a very different XtremMac. While the artist's rendition (nope, still no photos) still looks like a piece of recording equipment, gone are the claims of a 1200 MHz G4. Instead, now the XtremMac page lists single- and dual-processor models with G4s running at 1066 MHz. There's little other information there, other than a notice saying "these pages are being revised: February 22-24, 2001," but given that it's now the 27th and therefore the changes must be complete, we suppose Xtrem's taking a minimalist approach when it comes to product info.

There's still no ship date listed, but the page makes a big deal about how this is "the NEW XtremMac" that is "under development" and "NOT shipping," as opposed to that old XtremMac that never shipped at all. Notice how it's just "new," and not "new and improved." We figure even Xtrem isn't baldfaced enough to claim that an 11% speed reduction constitutes an improvement. If you want to get heavily into the comparisons, the original XtremMac boasted a 140% clock speed improvement over Apple's then-fastest 500 MHz Mac; now that the 733 MHz Power Mac G4 is available, the new XtremMac's downgraded clock speed is "only" a 45% boost. That's not to say that such an improvement isn't impressive-- or, rather, it'll be impressive if Xtrem ever actually ships it.

Now, it's entirely possible that Xtrem will turn around and announce that the XtremMac 1066 (what, is it the "Battle of Hastings" model?) will ship tomorrow for a suggested retail price of $1999. But given the company's history, it's also entirely possible that by the time the XtremMac sees the light of day, it'll indeed run at 1066 MHz-- when Apple's Power Macs are running at 1.1 GHz. In any event, our original prediction was right: Xtrem didn't bring us a 1200 MHz PowerPC 7400 by the close of the last millennium. And we're skeptical enough to think that if Xtrem ever ships its 1066 MHz wonder, it's going to be far less impressive than some people might expect. We'd be thrilled to be wrong, of course-- but then again, we're still waiting for our review copy of COS to arrive.

So the latest iMacs have kicked up a fair bit of controversy, eh? Sure, most of the ruckus is about the questionable fashion value of the new "Flower Power" and "Blue Dalmatian" patterns, but there are other complaints floating around, too. Some people are irked that, following Steve Jobs's headlong plunge into the CD-RW arena, it's no longer possible to buy an iMac with a DVD-ROM drive built in. Lots of people can't believe that Apple is still shipping systems with 64 MB of RAM, when it claims that Mac OS X requires 128 MB. Others are shaking their heads over the iMac's entry price jumping from $799 to $899; even though the new low-end iMac includes FireWire and is functionally similar to the previous $999 iMac DV model, the fact remains that now people need to pony up an extra Benjamin to partake of the iMac's yummy translucent goodness.

And even beyond that, there are a few voices bemoaning the fact that the latest iMacs-- even the high-end "Special Edition" model-- still ship with G3s instead of the faster G4 processor. Personally, that doesn't bother us so much, since with the advent of the PowerBook G4, Apple has finally attained a simple "G3 = consumer, G4 = professional" symmetry that we find peacefully pleasing from a Feng Shui type of perspective. Still, we understand that consumers like speed, too, and so if any of you are really hell-bent on owning a G4-powered iMac, allow us to offer a solution: make us an offer for our original Bondi Blue rev. A iMac, and then pop in a PowerLogix iForce G4 upgrade.

You read that right; as faithful viewer Nik Stanosheck observed, those clever folks at PowerLogix have indeed figured out a way to wedge a 400 MHz or 450 MHz PowerPC 7410 (that's "G4" to the rabble in the pit) into any of Apple's first four iMac revisions-- any of the ones with tray-loading CD-ROM drives, if we're not mistaken. Apparently all you need to do is pop open your iMac, yank out the original processor card, move your RAM from Apple's processor card to the iForce, slap the iForce onto the motherboard, snap everything back together, install some software, and voilà-- you've got an "obsolete" iMac with a tiger in its tank.

Granted, that's not exactly a grandmother-friendly task (as anyone who has ever installed RAM in an pre-Kihei iMac is well aware), but it's still mighty impressive that owners of older iMacs can upgrade to a G4 if they so desire-- and for the low, low price of just $379. The iForce G4 isn't shipping quite yet, but it's expected to hit dealer shelves in "early Q2 of 2001," which is just around the corner, so start saving your pennies now. And we were just kidding before-- our beloved Bondi Blue wonder isn't for sale, so don't bother submitting bids.

Don't look now, but "Redmond Justice" is heating up again. Ever since Microsoft was found guilty of violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the case entered the nebulous netherworld of the appeals process, the show has consisted mostly of this tedious business of duelling brief-filings that, frankly, holds less drama than half an hour of the Home Shopping Network. But things are getting juicy again, as oral arguments in the Trial of the Century (uh, last century) kicked into high gear on Monday. Those of you who have been following this little story from the beginning might be able to fight the encroaching senility long enough to recall that while Judge Jackson clearly wasn't going to cut the Redmond team any breaks, the appeals court seemed a lot more Microsoft-friendly. Whether or not that estimation still holds true depends entirely on your point of view.

For instance, if you take a look at what a Reuters article had to say about the first day of arguments, you might conclude that the judges all showed up wearing Bill Gates t-shirts and lighting their cigars with large bills bearing the seal of the Bank of Redmond. Reportedly the seven-judge panel "reserved most of its skepticism for the government," with one judge going so far as to say that a corporate breakup would just "replace one monopoly with another." Several crucial points of the government's case came under heavy fire, including the assertion that Microsoft intended to maintain its monopoly by crushing Netscape, whether or not Netscape really had suffered from predatory practices since its browser remained readily available, and whether consumers had really been harmed by Microsoft forcing computer manufacturers not to remove Internet Explorer in favor of any other browser. Furthermore, it's clear that Judge Jackson doesn't have many fans on the panel, who cast doubt upon his findings of fact.

On the other hand, if you mosey on over to The Register's coverage instead, you don't need to read any further than the headline "Microsoft lawyer hectored by appellate judges" to determine that those folks have an entirely different spin on the matter. The Register's focus is on the skepticism levelled at Microsoft attorney Richard Urowsky after he had been flatly informed that a reversal was more or less out of the question. We don't envy the position of any man who needs to stand up in court and keep a straight face while claiming that Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows didn't actually harm Netscape; that said, the man chose his battle, so he deserves whatever he gets. Personally, we're just happy that the action is starting up again, because we'd almost forgotten the giddy thrill of a heated courtroom antitrust debate. Here's looking forward to more of the same...