Thank heaven! Here we were, thinking that the knee-jerk anti-Mac sentiment in the press had gone the way of the dinosaurs, when Information Week columnist Fred Langa proves otherwise. In his latest "Langa Letter," he claims that the press has been handling Apple with kid gloves because "no one likes to kick an underdog." (Heck, if that were true, what was all that "Apple is dead" press back when the company was really an underdog?) Langa admits that Apple has "done some things well," like advertising the iMac, but he goes on to list what he perceives to be continuing problems that Apple still has to face.

Now, let's be perfectly fair: many of Langa's points are valid, even if they're spun waaay in the anti-Mac direction. He says, for example, that "the Mac's memory management/memory protection scheme is legendarily outdated-- the Mac has probably the very worst memory management among all the currently shipping major operating systems." Harsh words, yes-- but basically true. But then he goes on to blame those OS problems for the glitches that plagued the Macworld Expo Tokyo keynote address in a remarkably inaccurate manner. Reading his account of the keynote is like looking at one of those "How Many Things Are Wrong With This Picture?" puzzles. First of all, he claims that the system crashed while Jobs was performing a demo and had to be rebooted. Actually, it crashed while Microsoft rep Ben Waldman was trying to demo a brand-new Japanese version of Internet Explorer. And it wasn't Jobs earnestly trying to point out an "innovation" to the audience by mentioning the reset switch on the front-- it was Waldman, trying to cover IE's instability with a pathetic little joke.

Langa then goes on to say that Jobs' streaming video demo, in which a G3 server was to send video to fifty iMacs at once, "didn't work. At all." But anyone who would actually take the time to watch the demo via the video streams that were made available via the web saw that it wasn't nearly that bad, and the demo did work eventually. And, of course, it worked flawlessly a month before in San Francisco. Glaring factual errors make it clear that Langa isn't interested in the truth; he's just out to bash Apple. Cool! Finally, we can relax, knowing that there's still a healthy dose of anti-Mac hysteria in the media. Maybe the world isn't coming to an end, after all.

Ladies and Gents, in the context of discussing the dreaded Melissa virus, we at AtAT recently made some statements that were just plain wrong. Basically, we said that Macs weren't susceptible to the Melissa virus because that virus relies on Microsoft Outlook (not Outlook Express) to do its dirty work, and there's no Mac version of Outlook. That fact was incorrect-- Outlook does exist for the Mac and ships as a component of Microsoft Exchange Server for Windows NT. Several faithful viewers told us so within minutes of broadcast, prompting us to issue an addendum to that day's episode. However, in the addendum we also passed along information that we received from several of those viewers regarding the future of Outlook on the Mac, which looked rather dim. Many people told us that Mac Outlook lacked crucial features found in the Windows version, and that Microsoft had claimed they were phasing out support for it, viewing it as really just a stepping stone for migration to Windows.

So, in response to that statement, here's an editorial reply from David Dumler, whom you can consider the "horse's mouth" on this issue, since he's a product manager at Microsoft:

Regarding your story about the Mac Outlook client and Microsoft stating that the client is no longer supported and users should move to Windows, it is not true. This client is always getting additional improvements with new features and bug fixes, and is fully supported by Microsoft (and always has been). In fact, to learn more about what we are doing to this client, connect to http://www.microsoft.com/office/97/Outlook/Documents/mac.htm. You will see here we are committed to improving this client, etc.

Pre-empted! Oh, what rotten luck; we "Redmond Justice" fans will have to endure an even longer hiatus than originally expected, as external forces continue the delay and plague our drama-addicted lives. If you've been counting down the days until mid-April, it's time to reset your clocks, because according to an IDG News Service article, the trial isn't expected back on the air until May 10th. This is a scheduling delay of such cruel proportions that it nearly surpasses that time a couple of years ago when Fox didn't broadcast the season premiere of The X-Files until November.

Judge Jackson met with representatives from both sides in the case and revealed that the trial he's moonlighting with during the "Redmond Justice" hiatus has "taken longer than he expected." In fact, it's entirely possible that we won't get our show back until well after the May 10th date, depending on how things go from here on out. We're not entirely sure how to deal with that. Oh, sure, we could start watching other courtroom dramas in the meantime, but we're willing to bet that none of them will satisfy our hunger for heavy-duty anti-trust action. After all, when was the last time you saw arguments about what constitutes a monopoly on Ally McBeal?

What's worse, as we wait out the six miserable weeks until the trial may resume, there isn't even very much dirt to dish on the settlement talks. As stated by government lead attorney David Boies, "the parties with respect to this issue are of a single mind. If there are going to be constructive settlement discussions, those discussions cannot take place in the public. As a result none of us will have any comment whatsoever about settlement discussions." Oh, come on, Dave, you're killing us! Throw us a bone! At least the Seattle Times has a little news on the subject; they report that Microsoft is "willing to discuss" the way it makes the Windows APIs available. The idea here is that Microsoft's applications (like Office) have an unfair advantage over their competition, because Microsoft is stingy about releasing programming specs for Windows applications in a timely manner. It's not as earth-shattering as an agreement to make Windows open-source or split up the company, but it's progress, nonetheless.