So, uh, you're planning on getting one of the first dual 2 GHz Power Mac G5s to roll off the production line, huh? Sucker. Everybody knows that the smart Mac users never buy a new Mac when a better one has already been announced, and mere minutes after next month's G5s were first unveiled, Steve Jobs proclaimed that the G5 would reach 3 GHz within twelve months. That means that your "top-of-the-line" Power Mac will be eclipsed by models 50% faster-- and probably the same price or cheaper-- in less than a year. Enjoy your ride on the obsolescence train!

"Okay," you say, "that's a pretty good point. I've been waiting for real speed for so long that I suppose another twelve months tops won't kill me, and I'll pick up a dual 3 GHz model when they come out." Oh, really? You're going to get the dual 3 GHz? Okay... loser. See, the really with-it Mac users never buy a new Mac when a better one has already been announced or even talked about. And since MacRumors has an alleged PowerPC roadmap provided by an "unconfirmed and anonymous source," the hep cats who base their real-world purchasing decisions on unfounded rumor aren't planning to shell out the cash for a new Mac at least until the PowerPC 980 "tops out around 4.5-5 GHz" sometime in 2005. Meanwhile, you'll be puttering along with your dinky little dual 3 GHz rig and choking on the dust of those who waited for a real machine.

We know what you're going to say: you'll just wait for the 5 GHz Power Mac. Well, that's just dandy, Gomer, except that the PowerPC 990 (allegedly debuting in 2005 at 6 GHz and getting "near 10 GHz" in 2006) is going to make your Mac look like a narcoleptic tree sloth on NyQuil. Molest us not with this pocket calculator stuff. Anybody who buys a new Power Mac before 2006 is just setting himself up for a world of hurt. Then again, if you get a 10 GHz Power Mac in 2006, you're still going to feel like a total dweeb when Macs based around the PowerPC 9900 start shipping in 2007 or 2008; sure, they'll start at only 9 or 10 GHz, but don't forget that each chip generation ekes out more performance per clock cycle.

Oh, what-- you're still a firm believer in the Megahertz Myth? (That's okay, you're in good company-- now that the company's got some clock cycles to play with, Apple seems to have yanked Jon Rubinstein's immortal thrill-a-minute presentation on Why Clock Speed Means Nothing™.) So you aren't going to care if the 9900 is faster than your outdated 990, just as long as they both run at 10 GHz? Well, good for you! Enjoy that feeling while it lasts-- until 2010 or 2011, when the 9900 hits "20-25 GHz."

So there you have it, folks: 25 GHz in a mere eight years' time-- at least, according to an unconfirmed and anonymous source, and hey, that's good enough for us. (Why wouldn't it be?) Those of you smart buyers who still haven't replaced your LC IIs because something better is always "just around the corner" should start saving up now, because come 2011, you're finally going to want to take the plunge. Unless somebody says anything about what's coming out in 2012.

Great news, everyone! As we all know, as much as we love our platform, there's no denying that the Mac lags behind Windows when it comes to availability of certain types of software-- such as games, uninstallers, and (perhaps most visibly) havoc-wreaking viruses. Well, in that last category, at least, things apparently aren't quite as dire as we imagined, since Sophos (a firm describing itself as "a world leader in anti-virus protection for businesses") has compiled a list of every single virus reported to its customer support department since New Year's Day, and claims that an honest-to-evilness Mac virus actually pulled in at a respectable 78th place, representing 0.16% of all reports. 78th?! Woo-hoo!! Who says the Mac has no viruses?

Now, while it's true that none of the top ten viruses (or, indeed, the top 77) was capable of infecting Macs, we're actually stunned by the Mac's 78th-place finish; we'd have expected a far worse showing, based on anecdotal evidence-- e.g., your friendly neighborhood AtAT staff has been using oodles of Macs for a decade and none of them has ever caught so much as a sniffle. Oh, wait-- we take that back. When one of us worked in a mixed-platform company that standardized on Office, we saw plenty of Macs infected with Word macro viruses caught from the Wintels. Suppose that's what Sophos is talking about with its magic Number 78, which goes unnamed in the article itself? Personally, we don't count Microsoft macro viruses as actual "Mac viruses," since you'd need to be running Office to be infected, although it sure was nice of Microsoft to try to throw us a bone by making a bunch of its viruses compatible with Office for the Mac.

In a real show of diplomacy, Sophos senior technology consultant Graham Cluley does his best to avoid making the Mac look like a second-class citizen in the world of viruses by insisting that "a Mac has no more inherent security when it comes to malware than a PC." While that's kind of him to say, maybe it's just us, but since the vast majority of modern Windows viruses propagate by means of exploiting holes in Windows and Outlook to email themselves to everyone in the infected user's address book, we'd consider the lack of a Microsoft-developed default email client on the Mac to be an "inherent security advantage." Still, it was a nice gesture.

Cluley goes on to say that "despite their cool designer looks, Apple Macs are failing to capture interest amongst the counter-culture which writes viruses." Meaning, it's all Jonathan Ive's fault. If we as a community ever want to achieve Virus Parity with Windows, it's up to the Ivester to design a Mac enclosure which draws the malware developers in droves. (Come on, Jon-- we're counting on you!) Meanwhile, Cluley also insists that "Mac users shouldn't think it's okay to lie back on their laurels and not worry about viruses-- they do exist for Mac computers, and do infect systems on a daily basis." Thanks for the vote of confidence, Graham! Some pessimists might think you were just trying to drum up some business among newly-spooked Mac users, but we understand that your comments are all about the love.

It had to happen sooner or later. Whispers of an Apple-Adobe rift have been circulating for years now, and while lots of people think that the trouble only started once Apple started working on iPhoto (which allegedly was originally going to come in consumer and pro flavors, thereby competing with Photoshop), prickly feelings go back at least as far as Apple's release of Final Cut Pro. Apparently Adobe wasn't overly thrilled with Apple suddenly shipping a serious competitor to its own Premiere software.

Now, assuming that the first shoe dropped four years ago when Final Cut Pro first shipped, Shoe Number Two has finally hit the floor with a resounding thud: according to CNET, Adobe has just introduced Premiere Pro, and there's nary a Mac version in sight; it's Windows XP-only from here on in. According to Adobe's David Trescot, the company was "rewriting Premiere from scratch, and it would have taken a lot of work to have cross-platform support." And since the Mac already has Final Cut Pro, well, it wouldn't have made good business sense, in part because (and keep in mind that we can only judge by the majority of the mail we've gotten on the subject, because we're strictly iMovie-level video people) Final Cut Pro knocks Premiere flat on its kiester six ways from Sunday.

According to Apple, this is "old news" and Adobe "talked about this months ago," which is entirely possible, since we haven't exactly had our finger on the pulse of the industry for the last year or so. Still, given the company's history of providing Mac versions of its applications, Adobe's Windows-only Premiere came to us as at least a mild surprise, if not actually a shock. And while this could be in part a consequence of a long-standing rift between the two companies (which would be much more in line with AtAT's usual brand of melodrama), we can't help but think that Adobe's words ring true: "if Apple's in a software market, third-party vendors are going to skip it."

Hmmm, so let's see... Microsoft claims it dropped the Mac version of IE because of Safari, Adobe dropped Premiere because of Final Cut Pro. What's next? Here's a guess: Microsoft drops Office because it claims it just can't compete with the powerhouse known as AppleWorks. Yessirree, any day now...