All's not perfect in paradise. We've been hearing a bit of grumbling about Mac OS 8.5, due to hit store shelves in a week and a half. Apparently no small number of Mac users are just a little bummed about Apple's price for the software update-- $99, with no special upgrade pricing. Compare that to Mac OS 8, which cost $99 as well, but included a $30 rebate for registered owners of Mac OS 7.6. And System 7.6 cost less for registered owners of 7.5. No, 8.5 is a straight $99 no matter what version of the Mac OS you're running now-- so reports MacNN.

Sure, via the Up-to-Date program, Apple's offering Mac OS 8.5 for $9.95 to people who bought Macs up to thirty days prior to the October 17th launch date, and that's pretty cool of them. But what about iMac owners who bought their systems in the first month they were available, and thus don't qualify for Up-to-Date? We'd heard that Mac OS 8.5 was supposed to be very cheap to those who ran out and embraced Apple's happy blue gumdrop-looking thingy as soon as they appeared. Still no word about that. But there's some good news in the mix. Apparently Mac OS 8.5 will include a free upgrade to QuickTime 3 Pro, a $30 value, if you register your new system software purchase via the web. True, QuickTime Pro mostly just gives back features that Apple took away when they releases QuickTime 3, but it's still a nice thing to have; you can kiss those "Get QuickTime Pro" ads goodbye forever.

While the official price is $99, keep in mind that in addition to the free registration of QuickTime Pro, many resellers are bound to be offering their own incentives to sweeten the deal. Already, we're told that MacWarehouse is offering a $10 rebate, and we're willing to bet that others will come up with other promotions. Still, for people who keep their System Folders up to date, the bottom line is that Mac OS 8.5 is significantly more expensive than previous Mac OS releases. We don't fault Apple for trying to collect some cash for their hard work, but they'd best be careful not to alienate those of us who have faithfully bought every Mac OS upgrade they've seen fit to release-- though everything we hear about Mac OS 8.5 indicates that it'll be well worth the price.

So the apparent pricing of Mac OS 8.5 doesn't bother us all that much, but something else about it does. MacInTouch raises a very interesting point about the compatibility level of Apple's new system software release. We're not talking about the fact that it runs only on PowerPC-based Macs (though we could understand why some 68040 owners might feel a bit left out). What irks us is that Mac OS 8.5 apparently doesn't officially support Mac OS clones.

That's not necessarily the case, but reportedly the documentation implies that only Apple-branded Macs are officially supported. That's not to say that the new system software won't work on your clone (in fact, MacInTouch lists several clones on which beta copies of Mac OS 8.5 are reportedly working perfectly), just that Apple doesn't guarantee that it'll work properly. We're going to have to classify that as a bad move on Apple's part, considering that they stated they'd support Power Computing machines on an ongoing basis after the buyout. But we honestly can't say we're surprised.

While we're happy and relieved to hear that Mac OS 8.5 should work just fine on our PowerTower Pro, we've got to say we're disappointed with Apple's interpretation of "ongoing Mac OS support to Power Computing customers." Heck, the announcement of the buyout came only just over a year ago. Time moves fast in the computer world, but we'd have to classify that as "rushing things." Assuming, of course, that all of this is true in the first place...

Once again, we find ourselves indebted to faithful viewer Matthew Guerrieri, who manages to sniff out irony like a bloodhound tracking a fugitive covered in tangy barbeque sauce. (In case you were wondering, sleep deprivation does wonders for injecting a little pizzazz into one's similes. But anyway.) Matthew has done us all an entertaining good turn by watching the Microsoft legal machine do its thing. It's a valuable lesson in relativity-- or, at least, legal convenience.

Matthew caught an article in the Wall Street Journal about the ongoing "Redmond Justice" case, whose trial is still slated to start in just a couple of weeks. Apparently the Microsoft tactic-du-jour is to introduce some email messages from Netscape that were sent just after the two companies met to discuss their competing web browsers. This email, Microsoft claims, contains "no hint that Netscape had been threatened, as the government alleges." Email as solid evidence. Right?

Okay, now take a look at this Detroit News article, which is about another Microsoft legal tussle-- the Sun lawsuit alleging that Microsoft violated its contract by contaminating Java. In that case, Sun is apparently planning to introduce some Microsoft email as evidence that the software giant was feeling very threatened by Java's potential to usurp Windows' stranglehold on the market. And Microsoft's response to that strategy? The email is "interesting," but amounts to no more than "background noise" since email messages are so informal and conversational in nature. Anyone sense a double standard? Question: should email be considered evidence in a lawsuit? Answer: depends who wrote it...