The rumor that Rhapsody is being "Steved" has permeated all ranks of the Mac faithful, even to the point of Don Crabb musing about such a move in an article on MacNN. Don summarizes the points that have all of us a little on edge: Apple is "pulling back" on Rhapsody, saying that it's not just continuing the Mac OS for backwards support-- the Mac OS is really our future; Rhapsody is instead being hyped as a server OS that may also be suitable for some high-end users who need its heavy-duty features. Don is understandably upset with this strategy, citing its likelihood of dissuading developers from writing anything for Rhapsody (since who would use it?) and dooming the fledgling operation system to an early retirement. The end result? We're left with the same creaky OS foundation that we had before the Copland debacle, and after adding another half a billion dollars to the money pit. And that, presumably, is why Apple's rumored to be thinking about scrapping the whole deal. But which is better-- a failed Rhapsody, or a cancelled one?

Thankfully, Mac OS Rumors claims that the rumors about the latter possibility are "patently false," and have all arisen from the recent media frenzy claiming that Apple's dual-Os strategy is a new plan; just corporate backpeddling due to a project that's not going as well as everyone had hoped. However, as faithful viewer Bobby Thomale points out, this recent "repositioning" of Rhapsody is largely a media construction; Apple's been pushing the dual-OS model since last January. The vision of Rhapsody as being a replacement for the Mac OS was retired over a year ago.

...Of course, some would wonder about the wisdom of accepting the debunking of a rumor from a site that is a rumormonger by trade. But you only live once, after all. And it looks like Rhapsody's going to get its chance to fight for elbow room in the computer world. But will Apple let it fight on the desktop as well as in the servers?

But while Rhapsody is reported to be alive and well, its OS cousin Newton is constantly reported to be on its last legs. Those reports are increasing in strength and frequency in these dark days, when Apple is shedding "unprofitable" projects like a balloonist dropping ballast. Given Apple's frustrating tight-lippedness on the subject, it's been tough to decide where to turn for some answers.

Enter thessaSOURCE's special report on the "Fate of the Newton." Assuming that thessaSOURCE's sources are trustworthy, the picture looks pretty bleak: while the Newton will continue in its current form for now, once the existing MessagePads are all sold, that's all she wrote. The eMate, on the other hand, was being developed further, yielding the long-awaited bMate business version, as well as a couple of other variations. Unfortunately, the porting of the Newton OS to the new StrongARM chip never even got into alpha stage, and the bMate is unlikely to ship. Most of the Newton engineers have left, been laid off, or are now working in other sectors of Apple, like the Rhapsody project. And it sounds as if Apple's future forays into the handheld market might use a modified version of the Mac OS (Mac OS CE?) instead of the Newton OS-- if, indeed, Apple targets the handheld market at all.

In the end, though, the only entity that can tell us once and for all what's up with Newton is Apple, and they aren't talking-- an inaction we find irresponsible in the extreme, we might add. But is Apple aware that not making a decision is a decision made in itself? If they continue to keep quiet about Newton, soon there will be no public support or demand for the nifty handhelds, and the technology will surely die once and for all. And that'd be a darn shame.

In a move that we're sure is totally unrelated to the ongoing drama of "Redmond Justice," Microsoft is sticking its Internet Explorer business unit into its Windows operating system business unit. Details are available in a Reuters story.

Of course, it's just a coincidence that this move comes now, while Microsoft is embroiled in a bitter struggle to prove that Internet Explorer is an integrated portion of the Windows 95 OS, and not a separate application, despite the fact that it's always been developed separately and is available for other operating systems. It's clear that development, marketing, and management of just the Internet Explorer portion of Windows being handled in a completely separate group was a simple oversight, and certainly doesn't imply that IE could be a standalone application, or anything like that.

Ow... I think we just sprained our sarcasm unit... Somebody get us an ice pack.