Things are awfully quiet in Macville these days. How quiet? Well, MacWEEK has trotted out that old chestnut about Apple needing a six-slot Mac, if that means anything to you. The "pro Macs need more slots" debate was slow-news-day fare even when the first beige G3s shipped two and a half years ago; since then, the subject has gone out of style at least twice, so when a major Mac news outlet trots it out for one more tired run, you just know those folks are scraping the bottom of the news barrel. (When we first read the headline we thought we had inadvertently slipped back in time, but when we hurriedly checked Apple's stock price, our hopes of an easy score crumbled to dust. So sad.)

And with so little going on down Cupertino way (at least of a public nature), what better time for rampant speculation and amateur armchair corporate steerage? After all, opinions are like AOL CD-ROMS-- everyone's got at least sixty, and they're anxious to push them off onto others. In that respect, we at AtAT are no different from anyone else, so we figured we'd weigh in on this whole iMac refresh issue. Sales numbers don't lie-- or, at least, for the moment we're going to pretend that they don't-- so when we hear that sales of Apple's flagship consumer product are flattening out, we get a little worried. Especially since it's not as if Apple isn't pushing the things for all they're worth; iMac commercials are maintaining a hearty primetime network presence, and faithful viewer Wil Nelson even notes that Apple is reportedly offering cash-incentive "spiffs" to CompUSA sales personnel on every iMac sold. So why the lousy sales?

Most everyone who's offered an opinion on the issue agrees that, in one way or another, what's hurting the iMac's sales is the lack of a revision B Kihei (or, if you choose to keep lettering from the beginning, a revision F iMac). The iMac in its current incarnation hasn't changed one iota in eight months, which is unheard of in that product's short history. Now, with iMac commercials back in heavy rotation and Apple paying CompUSA to move as many iMacs as possible, it's reasonably logical to assume that Apple's trying to clear the channel-- presumably for whatever new iMac is coming down the pike. More than likely that new model will first surface at next month's Macworld Expo, and what it'll be is anyone's guess. Luckily, John Martellero is one such anyone, and he goes out on a limb at MacOpinion to surmise that perhaps the Big Surprise™ in store for next month's Stevenote is a retooled iMac incorporating not a 15" monitor, not a 17" monitor, but an honest-to-goodness LCD flat-panel display instead of the standard CRT.

Now, John's not alone in considering this possibility; faithful viewer Nicole Yates wrote in a while back with the same suggestion, and we're sure they are aren't the only two who are expecting Apple to move away from CRTs (big, heavy, and hot) and towards LCDs (thin, light, and cool-- in more ways than one) in the iMac line. Our only question is, "when?" Personally, we'd love to see a flat-panel iMac debut next month, but given the cost of LCDs these days, we think it's probably a mite early. An iMac with a 15" LCD would probably have to cost upwards of $1799 right now, and that price point's just a little high for widespread consumer adoption. If an LCD iMac shows up as early as next month, you can bet it'll be the new "Special Edition" model; the base iMac and iMac DV models will most certainly be CRT-based. Whether those CRTs will be 15" or 17" in size is anyone's guess; we're doubting that Apple would make the iMac bigger and bulkier by integrating such a large tube, but stranger things have happened. Eventually, though, we're quite certain Apple will get out of the CRT business altogether, and every Apple display-- whether integrated into another product, or sold as a standalone unit-- will be a flat-screen LCD. It's just a matter of time, though we're not placing any bets on when.

Nothing beats broadband; having experienced both DSL and a cable modem, we're not going to deny that. But people who blithely claim that dialup is dead are just a little premature with their pronouncements. There are plenty of people for whom broadband simply isn't an option-- they live in areas where the cable companies don't yet offer Internet access, and maybe they're too far from the local CO to qualify for DSL (assuming it's even offered in the first place). So plenty of poor souls are still stuck with dialup as their best or only option for Internet access. And what about road warriors who need to connect from the hotel? It'll be a while before every HoJo's offers an Ethernet connection to a T1 in every room. There's a reason that all PowerBooks and iBooks still come with built-in modems.

And there's yet another factor that many in the "dialup is dead" camp have overlooked: price. Cable modem access is typically $40 a month on top of the cost of cable TV service; basic-level DSL seems to cost about the same. (We don't know much about these so-called "free DSL" offers, but we admit to being suspicious; we've yet to see a "free offer" without some pricey strings attached.) Compared to the standard $20-a-month for, say, an EarthLink account, the price of broadband can be unjustifiably steep for budget-conscious surfers. So there's still a market for cheap dialup access.

Dialup customers rejoice! AltaVista Free Access has just announced that their no-cost dialup Internet service is finally available for Mac users. There are a few strings, of course... for one thing, the service is PowerPC-only, so users of older Macs are out of luck. You also have to deal with giving up a chunk of your screen real estate to AltaVista's advertising portal, which shoves ads in your face while you're connected, but unless you're the intensely optimistic type, you probably expected that. The bottom line is, now there's another free dialup option for Macs (we're told that FreeWWWeb also works if you don't mind tweaking all your settings manually), and more choice is always a good thing. On the free-with-ads front, though, we have to wonder at which point viewers hit maximum density. Let's see... how about connecting with AltaVista, using the ad-driven free version of Eudora for email, chatting with AOL Instant Messenger, and surfing lots of banner-heavy sites? Soon we'll find out what the human capacity for advertising is-- when some poor surfer's head pops after seeing one too many offers for affordable term life insurance.

The writers of "Redmond Justice" threw us all another curve on Monday, as the government filed its latest brief in the ongoing battle to settle on a remedy. The last filing came from Microsoft, who issued a comedic rebuttal of the government's most recent breakup plan, and proposed numerous changes for the judge to make. The government, sensing danger, requested the opportunity to react to Microsoft's proposed changes; the judge agreed. But while most fans of the show were expecting a scathing report describing why each and every one of Microsoft's suggestions would derail the effectiveness of the remedy, the government instead caved like a house of cards in a wind tunnel.

Get this-- according to WIRED, the government has actually agreed to call the breakup a "divestiture" instead of a "reorganization." Imagine! As if a "divestiture" is going to be anywhere near as effective in stopping predatory business practices as a "reorganization" would be. If that's not startling enough, the government has also agreed to replace the word "limit" with the word "restrict"; we don't need to tell you how seriously that's going to affect the enforceability of the plan. And most shocking of all, the government has made a major tactical concession and agreed to capitalize the terms "personal computer" and "manager" throughout the document. It's like Microsoft committed eight counts of first-degree murder and is walking away with probation and a fifty-dollar fine.

While the government refused to budge on certain other issues, such as the mandate that Microsoft be required to save all of its email and the ten-year minimum on conduct limitations, we think you'll agree that such ineffectual demands are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts to distract the public from the major concessions described above. Following Microsoft's stunning semantic victory, we can only assume that bribery and graft figured heavily in the government's latest behavior. Perhaps more nefarious schemes will come to light when Microsoft files its final brief on Wednesday.