It's been quite a while since Steve Jobs retook the helm at Apple and started making some bold changes. Probably the single most controversial move he made was to end the first era of Mac cloning; in retrospect, we at AtAT admit it was almost certainly the right move, but at the time we, like many others, were skeptical and worried. And heck, even Steve admits that he wasn't sure of the move-- we imagine the death threats he received as a result may have had a lot to do with that. Anyway, Apple's getting back on its feet with excellent products, a tighter and more efficient business model, and a newfound sense of public confidence. So what are the odds that Mac cloning will start up again anytime soon, albeit with a more sensible set of licensing terms?

Not very good, apparently, given that Apple's making some changes to its "Mac OS-compatible" logo. Specifically, the "OS" part is going away; according to an Apple software license agreements web page, the official description for Mac-compatible hardware and software is, well, "Mac-compatible." Similarly, the "Mac OS" logo now just says "Mac." And according to Apple, "the new Mac logo will replace the old Mac OS logo on all Apple and third-party materials moving forward." It seems like a small change, sure, but when you think about it, nothing underscores the death of Mac cloning quite so well. Remember when Apple created the Mac OS logo to be used with the clones? And when they renamed "About This Macintosh..." and "Macintosh Easy Open" to "About This Computer..." and "Mac OS Easy Open"? Now that the Mac OS is back to running just on Apple-branded Macs, such changes are no longer necessary, and we're guessing that some of it will change back the same way that the "Mac OS-compatible" logo did. That all indicates that we shouldn't hold our breath for the second era of Mac cloning.

Admittedly, now that Apple's products are more compelling, their delivery times are better, and their prices are more in sync with the rest of the industry, we don't miss the clones all that much. Still, there's no doubt that the addition of a few cloners could really address some gaps in Apple's product line-- like high-end six-slot workstations, for example. Then again, if everything were perfect, what on earth would we complain about?

Speaking of those missing six-slot systems, the debate continues to rage over whether or not Apple's making the right decision in shipping and planning professional-level Macs with three PCI slots-- four, tops. There are basically two schools of thought on the subject: the first contends that Apple's doing the right thing, since only a very tiny minority of the Mac community needs more than three slots, so why should Apple spend the money designing and supporting two different motherboards, or why should the bulk of its customers pay for slots that they will never use? The other (more vocal) opinion is that the "tiny majority" that needs more slots is incredibly important to Apple's future, and alienating them is suicidal, at best. This debate's been flaming for longer than the "where's the floppy in the iMac?" argument.

Now, we'd have to guess that by far the most vocal critics of Apple's three-slot choice are Don Crabb and Robert Morgan (of Apple Recon fame). Crabb is still flaming strong on the issue-- he's in rare form in his recent tirade over at MacCentral. But what's this? Morgan seems to have changed his tune. In a recent RFI Report, he publicly admits that he was wrong about the slots. Apparently after talking to someone "in the know," he now "gets it" and understands Apple's strategy for keeping the content creation pros happy with only three slots. What he won't say is exactly what that strategy is (though he says he's not talking about the PCI expansion chassis), but there are a few hints here and there that the PCI slots are only provided for "legacy" cards, implying that there's a whole new method of expansion awaiting Mac users. Hmmm.

Apparently we'll just have to wait and see what comes out of Apple's labs. As for where we at AtAT stand on the whole issue, well, we don't have terribly strong feelings one way or the other. But we will say this: as members of the "content creating" Mac community, our PowerTower Pro has only one of its six slots currently in use-- and that's for a video card. Granted, that video card also does basic video capture and export, but still, we've got five slots sitting vacant, since our "content" is typically 2D and 3D graphics and a little low-end sound and video, none of which require lots of special cards. So even though we admit there's a definite need for more expandable Macs, we hope Apple finds a way to satisfy that crowd without inundating the rest of us with slots we don't need. Morgan's not talking, but the very fact that he's publicly apologizing for attacking Apple on the slots issue indicates that Apple's got something pretty cool in the works. As for what it is, your guess is as good as ours.

Five full weeks have passed in the new season of "Redmond Justice," and Microsoft is getting increasingly annoyed with the government's repeated practice of showing excerpts of Bill Gates' deposition before a witness is called. The portions of the testimony that the government has been showing uniformly reveal Gates to be forgetful, angry, difficult, combative, and less than credible. That's why, according to a Seattle Times article, Microsoft's lawyers officially requested that the judge prevent those excerpts from being shown in that manner. In a closed-door session, they requested that the government instead be forced to show the deposition in a single eight-hour chunk, instead.

Unfortunately for them, Judge Jackson sees nothing wrong with the manner in which the government is presenting that evidence. He rejected the request, stating that he found it "very effective" to hear Bill answer questions that were relevant to whatever issues were being addressed in court at the time. He went even further, suggesting that "if anything, I think your problem is with your witness, not with the way in which his testimony is being presented." Slam! Indeed, at this point is seems that Gates' unresponsiveness during his deposition could well be Microsoft's biggest liability in this case. If you're wondering what to get the world's richest man for Christmas, how about a big heaping helping of credibility? Then Microsoft could call him as a surprise witness and the fur could really fly.

What we find really interesting in the article is how Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray refers to Gates' testimony as an "immaterial sideshow." So the testimony of the man who is running the company on trial, and who has been personally named as the one who called for many of the alleged anticompetitive practices, is now "immaterial"? That's certainly a novel interpretation of things. Hang on tight, folks, because it just gets better and better...