Good things come to those who wait. And wait. And wait some more. Heck, sometimes it seems like we've been waiting for Mac OS X Server (the operating system formerly known as Rhapsody) forever. Not that we at AtAT are in any particular hurry to buy the OS ourselves; it is, after all, going to cost $1000, and it's not even guaranteed to run on our two-year-old hardware. Partly we're anxious because we think it's high time Apple finally released an OS that can really be used in a heavy-duty server environment, but mostly we want to see it come out just because we've been waiting for well over two years now for a brand-new operating system following Apple's purchase of NeXT. Waiting has become habit, even though what we're waiting for isn't something that we ourselves can particularly use.

The last few months, in particular, have been maddening, since it's always seemed that the release of Mac OS X Server has been just around the corner. It was over a month ago that Mac OS Rumors reported that Mac OS X Server had gone "golden master," meaning it was done, complete, finished, in the can, and sent off for duplication. Evidently that wasn't the case. Now, according to MacNN, Apple Insider sources are saying that the fabled server OS has indeed finally reached GM status. Really. This time for sure. Crazy optimists that we are, we believe them.

But not just on faith, mind you. Some nice beta tester apparently felt that his or her loyalty to AtAT outweighed any possible consequences of violating an Apple non-disclosure agreement, and let us spend a couple of hours sitting down at a G3 running a very late build of X Server. It is, to put it mildly, damn cool. Don't expect anything even close to being as elegant or easy to use as the Mac OS, but it's definitely the easiest Unix we've ever had the honor to play with. What was particularly creepy was booting the system's normal, everyday Mac OS 8.5.1 system disk in the Blue Box and having just about everything work. At full speed. As in, Myth played just fine. We didn't have the time to put the thing through any serious tests, but Apple Insider's sneak peek is very accurate, as far as we could tell. Memo to Apple: it's done. Ship it. And then slap on a Finder, make the Blue Box transparent, smooth out the rough edges, and give us all the full-fledged Mac OS X, which (if these early indications mean anything) will conquer the world.

Well, whaddaya know; apparently this latest Microsoft privacy "issue" is really starting to ruffle a few feathers. We speak, of course, of the way in which Microsoft Office reportedly "stamps" every document a user creates with a special "GUID" code which allows the document to be traced back to a specific installation of Office on a specific computer. It made the news when the media found out that this GUID information, which includes the unique Ethernet hardware address of the machine in question, was being sent back to Microsoft when Windows 98 users ran the "Registration Wizard" to register their software. Microsoft calls this a "bug," is working on a patch to Windows 98 to prevent this from happening in the future, and claims that the hardware info is "most likely" not being stored anywhere when it gets sent to Redmond. Bill Gates also has some nice, sunny Florida swampland to sell you, if you're interested.

So a scant two days ago, we at AtAT publicly wondered if the Mac version of Office 98 was also stamping documents with this identifying tag, and it appears that the answer to that question is a resounding "yes." MacInTouch, for example, claims to be getting a ton of email from Office users who are poking around their documents and finding all kinds of interesting stuff in the binary data. Yes, the GUID is there, and yes, it includes the Mac's Ethernet hardware address, so in theory a given document could be traced to a specific computer. Spooky. Even spookier is how one MacInTouch reader claims that a Xerox representative "bragged" to him about how they had worked with Microsoft on a way to "'encode' anonymous printed surveys with hidden ID numbers... linked to a detailed profile in Microsoft's (or another company's) database." In other words, Microsoft seems to be spending an awful lot of time working on ways to circumvent potential anonymity. You may think they don't know who you are, but they do.

So is Microsoft in fact building a huge database of user profiles tied to those users' computers by Ethernet addresses? If so, for what purpose? We're thinking, either government overthrow or some kind of virtual tagging and testing system like the smallpox vaccination tissue samples on The X-Files. Remember, Microsoft doesn't have to be part of a global consortium-- they are a global consortium. Suppose they're setting us up and cutting a deal with some aliens, who rely on computer hosts to survive? When colonization comes, the computers in Redmond will be spared in exchange for Microsoft's compliance; they'll hand over the databases and every computer running Microsoft software will be assimilated. Trust no one.

The media love-affair with Apple apparently continues, as now even PC-centric publications are going ga-ga over Apple's latest products. Thanks to a story over at Applelinks, we found out that PC World Online has some surprisingly complimentary things to say about the iMac and the "icebox" G3's. Apparently even the PC magazines are starting to think differently about the endless Wintel-world push to assemble cheap computers with little thought about how to differentiate the product other than by price.

Check it out-- PC World (who describes Apple as "a breathless shipwreck survivor crawling from a sea of red ink"-- we love that!) actually admits that the iMac is "the most enticing computer ever" to first-time buyers due to its "superior integration and ease of setup." Honestly, it's right there in black and white. As for the new "icebox" G3, they have high praise for its "easy-open" side door, which appeals to "users who have never met an upgrade they didn't like." In an inescapable nod to Apple's designers, the article states that "the new Macs show that Apple has thought hard about the needs of two different kinds of computer users." Oh, sure, there's the standard disclaimer about how "Apple's reemergence as a major competitor" is "not assured," but you can tell that PC World is impressed with the new Macs' design, and they consider the concept of differentiating a computer based on its style and simplicity to be a breath of fresh air.

Depending on how you look at it, it's either really funny or devastatingly sad that the article ends with an appeal that "PCs must get simpler" and "easier to use," given that the author feels that "Intel and Microsoft must lead the way." Yeah, and the federal government's going to lead the way in the areas of "cost savings" and "marital fidelity." Personally, we at AtAT feel that Apple's always been leading the way, but we suppose we can't expect PC World to accept that viewpoint just yet. Let's give it another year and see what G4's and Mac OS X can do to tip the scales.