Time to start drooling... According to Reality, Newer Technology was showing off a top secret new upgrade card to selected MacWorld Expo guests last week. (Apparently somebody didn't take their non-disclosure agreement very seriously.) Reportedly, the card packs a wallop by giving its users the power of a blistering 400 MHz G3 processor, and it's one of the new copper-based models, to boot.

Watch, as your friendly AtAT staff temporarily ignores the solid financial reasons why such an upgrade card is beyond our grasp, and we sink into a reverie of suspected MacBench scores in the 1600 range. Mmmm, yummy. But considering that copper's used in pennies, based on our estimated price of $2500 or higher for the new card once it ships, the processor may as well be using plutonium-and-Kryptonite technology to justify the cost. Still, for the serious speed demons among you, keep your eyes peeled for this sucker.

No word on when this alleged 400 MHz screamer will hit the shelves, but most likely it'll be in the same time frame as Apple's release of its new Pro-level G3 Power Macs this fall. We just hope for Newer's sake that their supply problem (which rivals Apple's recent PowerBook G3 debacle in scope) has been ironed out, and won't repeat itself for the rollout of the copper wonder.

While we're on the subject of upgrade cards, it's probably a good time to mention what you've likely already heard from other sources, but it bears repeating: we heard from several Apple representatives at last week's Expo that Mac OS X, next year's breakthrough operating system, will not run on any hardware other than Apple-branded G3 systems and higher. Power Mac G3's, PowerBook G3's, and iMacs will all be supported, but that's all as of right now.

We can certainly see the benefits in Apple restricting support of Mac OS X to its current hardware lineup; development and testing will be much simpler and much less expensive. Unfortunately, the decision (assuming it's final, which it may not be) leaves a lot of us out in the cold. We don't have any numbers handy, but we're willing to suspect that the number of G3 systems owners is a relatively tiny percentage of the overall Mac user base. The ones who get particularly screwed by the G3-only decision are those professionals who needed G3 speed but also needed six PCI slots, which Apple didn't offer; we're guessing that a fairly significant number of them bought expensive upgrade cards for their six-slot 9500's and clones. And there's also the issue that several people recently bought six-slot Umax G3 clones, which apparently won't run Mac OS X, either.

Of course, it's easy enough to suspect that the whole "G3-only" strategy is only a ploy by Apple to generate more sales for its hardware line. After all, if you're a professional and you're about to spend $1000 on a fast G3 upgrade card, hearing that you won't be able to run Mac OS X in a year might be enough of a reason to consider getting a whole new Power Mac instead. At the same time, the news may reduce the demand for third-party upgrade cards, which means Apple is able to secure a larger supply of G3 processors for use in its own computers. If you're a true conspiracy theorist, you can see that this is a pretty sound strategy; if, upon Mac OS X's release, Apple suddenly announces that it'll work on a much wider range of hardware than they previously thought, it's a big PR win. Pretty sneaky, hmmm? However the whole mess turns out, those of us who can't run Mac OS X will still have Sonata, so we're not overly concerned. Yet.

Not that it's a big shock or anything, but word has it that the Department of Justice does not plan to appeal the last decision in the "Redmond Justice" case. They reportedly feel that they would have relatively little to gain if they win, and a lot to lose if the appeal fails. You can read all the gory details in the San Jose Mercury News.

For those of you who have misplaced your scorecards, the decision we're discussing is the June 23rd overturning of last December's preliminary injunction, which required Microsoft to provide an Internet Explorerless version of Windows 95 to PC manufacturers. The DoJ apparently has forty-five days in which to appeal the appeal (!), but plans not to pursue the option, preferring to focus on its "Redmond Justice II" sequel, which is the much broader antitrust action against Microsoft, undertaken with the attorneys general of twenty states. Unfortunately for the DoJ, the overturning of the injunction validates Microsoft's claim that Internet Explorer is an inseparable part of Windows, and not a separate and distinct product (despite the fact that Microsoft gave away thousands of CD-ROMs of Internet Explorer for the Mac at last week's Expo, with no Windows on the disc). Rather than risk losing the appeal, which would pretty much let Microsoft cling to that argument forever, Justice plans to focus instead on other anticompetitive practices in the upcoming September 8th trial.

Sounds like a good move, and one that lets them try to use the "bundling as abuse of monopoly" argument even though it's been weakened. Other than to set precedent, why appeal a decision that affects Windows 95 when pretty much every PC manufacturer is shipping Windows 98 now instead?