For the most part, we at AtAT aren't huge fans of Jesse Berst's AnchorDesk over at ZDNet; it's usually very Wintel-crowd-centric, and the hot air factor can be high. But we do tune in every once in a while to see what's up, just for balance's sake, and so we were intrigued to see his prognostications about all the cool new features that'll be making their way into PCs next year-- amazing, jaw-dropping features that he claims will make all PC owners drool all over themselves and race to the store, credit cards in hand. The funny thing is, his list of features for "next year's computer" sounds pretty familiar for some reason.

Let's break it down, here... According to Jesse, one big feature most PCs will have in a year is instant-on, so users won't have to wait around to boot. Our iMac wakes from sleep in eight seconds-- and most of that is waiting for the screen to warm up. Since we never shut it down, to us, that's "instant-on." Jesse also predicts the PC of the future will have a "closed case: no more messing with cards. All peripherals will plug into a USB port." Hmmm, where have we seen that before? And the iMac, of course, also has his "no more beige blocks" feature in spades. In fact, the iMac only lacks one of his four "next year's PC" traits: a flat-screen LCD display instead of a CRT.

So how 'bout that? According to Jesse Berst, for the most part, the computer PC users will want next year is the computer Apple released last year. Apparently Apple wasn't kidding when they threw around all that marketing hoopla about "next year's computer right now," except that maybe it should have been "three-quarters of the computer from two years in the future right now." Isn't it nice to be ahead of the curve? Don't expect Apple to get any credit from Jesse, though; unsurprisingly, he makes only a passing reference to the iMac itself, as he describes Intel's forthcoming Aztec-pyramid-looking thing. Some things never change.

Best Buy's attempts to get into the iMac game were laughable-- or they would have been, if they hadn't been so terribly sad. The Sears rollout is off to a bumpy start, with some units on display with no demo software, no marketing materials, and a price tag $100 higher than even the Apple Store price. (The official launch date was pushed forward, so we have high hopes of a vast improvement very soon.) Even CompUSA's Apple store-within-a-store started out as a total nightmare, though it's gotten way better over time-- but problems remain. Generally speaking, the retail market has been extremely tough for Apple, since it lacks control over the presentation, demonstration, and sales of its own computers. The iMac, the PowerBook, the new G3-- these are works of art that should be celebrated and exalted, not just left on a shelf in a state of disrepair next to one of those startlingly ugly Compaq units.

So what's the solution? Don't ask us. While there are plenty of regional and local resellers that know how to treat Macs with the respect they deserve, on a national level Apple's always going to have to rely on the likes of Sears and CompUSA. The only chance we can see for a uniform and positive Mac-buying retail experience on a national scale is for Apple to open their own stores, and really, what's the likelihood of that happening? We'd always just dismissed that whole notion as a beautiful pipe dream-- a nice thing to fantasize about while picking through the war zone of the local CompUSA.

But now The Register claims that "speculation is mounting" that Apple is planning to open a chain of retail locations across the country. Of course, the phrase "speculation is mounting" is generally synonymous with the phrase "there's no actual basis in fact for this rumor, but we're going to spread it anyway," but it is interesting to note that Gateway seems to pull in pretty good margins with its stores, which offer a showcase for their systems which customers can order. Could the same model work for Apple? All we know is, the idea of being able to visit an Apple retail store thrills us to no end.-- but we're keeping it filed in the "Pipe Dreams" folder right now.

Let's face it: speed sells. More specifically, the illusion of speed sells. When the average consumer is picking out a computer to buy, one factor is always going to be MHz, whether he or she actually needs the speed or not. How many times have we heard the iMac reduced to the question "what's the big deal about a $1299 (or $1199) computer that's only 233 (or 266 or 333) MHz?" Never mind that the 233 MHz G3 will smoke one of those Celeron thingies running at a much higher clock speed. Heck, if you believe Apple, it even smokes the fastest Pentium III's-- but we don't expect you to be quite that accepting. The point is, benchmarks and performance in real-world applications probably don't mean as much as the raw MHz rating when it comes right down to the cash register. In fact, the very knowledge that a 550 MHz Pentium III even exists might push a consumer to buy a Wintel system-- even if he or she's just getting a 300 MHz Celeron machine.

It's a real testament to Intel's engineers that they keep managing to crank more and more clock cycles out of such an aging chip architecture; in terms of raw clock speed, everyone expected the RISC-based PowerPC to take the lead, but that just hasn't happened. Sure, there was a brief period starting with the point at which the 604e in the Power Computing PowerTower Pro 225 had a 25 MHz edge over the then-current 200 MHz Pentium Pro, but these days Apple's just unveiled a G3/450 while Pentium III's are running at up to 100 MHz faster. It's a marketing perception problem. Will Apple ever take the MHz lead?

Maybe. Mac OS Rumors claims that Motorola and IBM just might have test versions of 600 MHz G3s available in time for Macworld Expo next month-- but they'll only be for demo purposes, obviously. At that time, it's rumored that Apple will begin to ship 500 MHz Macs, which ought to be faster than most human beings can endure-- but it still loses the MHz race. It's a good thing that Apple products have so many other ways in which to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack-- style, ease of use, etc.-- but wouldn't it be great to have an uncontestable speed advantage as well?