See? Wall Street may take a while to catch on, but they're finally taking notice of Apple. Yet another analyst has raised his rating on Apple's stock; this time it's Richard Gardner of Salomon Smith Barney, who, according to a Mac Observer article, just upped his "neutral" rating to a "buy," citing strong iMac sales and other signs of health and growth. His new price target for AAPL is $55 a share; the stock closed at $44 and change following the announcement-- up a couple of percent, while the rest of the NASDAQ had fallen a bit. Gotta love that.

So now Salomon Smith Barney has seen the light, following a recent AAPL upgrade by Moody's (apparently, though, not Moody's Falafel Palace in Central Square, but that place rocks-- even Ben Affleck thinks so) and other slow-to-come, but generally favorable, sentiments about Apple's recent performance and future potential. This could get interesting. Of course, it seems that whenever Apple's stock price goes up, a lot of the gain withers slowly away over the course of the next few weeks, but it's tough to argue with a 300% gain in a year and a half. Whether or not AAPL can really hit the $55 mark remains to be seen, but with Sears starting to sell iMacs and Macworld Expo just around the corner (together with the assumed introduction of the hopefully-paradigm-breaking consumer portable), heck, why not?

Of course, we probably just jinxed the living bejeezus out of the whole possibility, now, but hey, don't let that stop you from buying. Superstitions are irrational and groundless beliefs. Overcome your fears.

So we were so fixated on checking last Sunday's Sears circular to see how they'd handle the debut of the iMac in their 800 stores (they, uh, didn't-- but we're told the official introduction has been pushed forward 'til next week) that we completely forgot to check the CompUSA circular. Typically it's a painful weekly process, seeing the iMac relegated to a tiny portion of page five sandwiched between two cheaper Wintel systems, if indeed it appears at all. But wouldn't you know it: the week we forget to check is the week that CompUSA reportedly runs a very attractive iMac bundling special. Maybe we should forget to check more often.

According to a Mac OS Planet article, this week's CompUSA special bundles together a new iMac/333 (none of those older clearance models in this bundle, nosiree) and one of those cool new Epson Stylus 740i color inkjet printers (the ones with the funky translucent iMac-style cases). Together, they form a home computer system that's as easy on the eyes as it is easy to use-- a wonderful accent to any room in your choice of colors. How much would you pay for this great bundle? Two thousand dollars? Three thousand? Don't answer yet, because there's more! CompUSA is also throwing in what seems to be the de facto standard scanner for the iMac, the Umax Astra 1220U, perfect for all your home scanning needs. Email photos of the kids to far-flung family members. Scan in embarrassing body parts at three in the morning when you're up to raid the fridge. Now how much would you pay?

Hold onto your hats, folks, because this powerful and easy-to-use system can be yours for only $1499. Don't delay, because this special offer is going fast. Run, don't walk, to your nearest CompUSA superstore and bring home an iMac today-- because iMacs aren't available via the Home Shopping Network. Yet.

Ahhhh... Feel that? It's like a cool breeze on a hot summer day-- brought to you courtesy of "Redmond Justice." That's right, the drama's back in the swing of things, and just because the trial resumed with the rebuttal testimony of an economist is no reason to think that the proceedings weren't interesting. Franklin Fisher, a professor of economy at MIT, took the stand to counter the earlier testimony of Richard Schmalensee-- another MIT economist. (Things must be tense around the faculty water cooler at the Sloan School of Management, hmmm?)

If you think way back, you might recall that Schmalensee's argument was that Microsoft doesn't hold an operating system monopoly, because there's no operating system market to monopolize. According to an Inter@ctive Week Online article, though, Fisher maintained that Schmalensee's points were "confused," "muddled," and "simply wrong." (Ouch! Take it outside, fellas.) Not only is there an operating system market (since the vast majority of computers sold are PC's), he claims, but Microsoft has clearly engaged in behavior designed to kill competition that might threaten its place as king of the hill. The biggest example is Microsoft's spending of "hundreds of millions of dollars" to develop Internet Explorer, which it then gave away for free in an obvious attempt to thwart competitors like Netscape and Sun. Since IE couldn't generate revenue by such a plan, its only purpose could be to eliminate competitors from the marketplace.

So it's only the first day back, and the sparks are already flying on "Redmond Justice." You just have to love a show on which an economist sums up Microsoft's defense so succinctly: "They don't have monopoly power now because someone might come out and compete with them." So now we have to wait for Schmalensee to take the stand to rebut Fisher's testimony. Stay tuned, because that's scheduled for later in the month. Perhaps we'll get more gems from him like the one about how Microsoft "record[s] operating system sales by hand on sheets of paper." Ain't life grand?