Okay, so Expo's finally over; it was a struggle, but your exhausted AtAT staff did in fact manage to crawl back to Boston before collapsing in a heap. In fact, we even managed to fix a few AtAT 2.0 bugs and answer a sizeable chunk of our email before falling unconscious and dreaming fever-dreams of tiny grey cubes chewing our legs off. (We're feeling much better now.) So at this time we'd like to address an issue that's been coming up over and over again: "After the keynote last week, why didn't you guys mention the dual-processor G4s?" Well, it's like this: AtAT only has limited airtime, and there was so much drama gushing out of that particular Stevenote, we simply couldn't tell you about everything. We stuck with what we considered to be the biggest news: the new Pro Mouse, the fall line of iMac colors, and the fact that the Cube really exists and isn't just a big fat hoax meant to make the rumors sites look like gullible morons.

But now that the show's over, we see no reason not to go back and discuss exactly why the dual G4 didn't make the cut for our Drama Top Three. After all, the idea is pretty revolutionary, if you think about it: Apple's two highest-end pro systems now come standard with dual processors, at no extra charge. No one else in the industry does that, as far as we know. It'd only be more remarkable if the $1599 unit went dual as well-- and we have a sneaking suspicion that the Power Mac will go exclusively multiprocessor early next year. What a great way to do an end-run around Megahertz Envy, right? At least for the pro desktop market.

But here's why we weren't quite as impressed as we maybe should have been: until the Mac OS gains symmetric multiprocessing capabilities, that second processor just isn't pulling its weight. Sure, if your applications are written to use the second chip, you're styling: pros who live and breathe Photoshop will definitely get their money's worth from Apple's new dual-processor systems, as Steve's on-stage demo proved. But until Mac OS X ships, at least in a public beta version, other non-MP-aware software won't even know that bonus processor's there.

And apparently we weren't the only ones who filed the MP G4 toward the back of the excitement rankings; according to CNET, most analysts weren't overly-impressed either, calling the advent of dual-processor G4s "just a marketing ploy." Now, we wouldn't go that far, since we did get to see a pre-release version of Mac OS X running on dual-G4 Macs, and it's like watching the Road Runner with a hotfoot on some serious amphetamines. Once Mac OS X hits the ground running, trust us-- those analysts will be singing a different tune, and it'll go something like this: "Marketing ploy? What marketing ploy?"

In the meantime, though, with the fastest shipping G4 chips running at merely 50% of the raw clock speed of the fastest shipping Intel/AMD processors, there's certainly something to the idea that Apple had to do something now to address the disparity. Marketing Boy Wonder Phil Schiller even tried to put a spin on the clock speed debacle, making this bold claim: "We're seeing megahertz increases, and we always will." Well, uh, yeah... but what Phil neglected to mention is where they're seeing them-- which just happens to be in Intel's press releases. The G4/500 was announced by Apple last August, didn't actually ship until February, and hasn't gone any higher since-- so we can't imagine where Phil's seeing these "megahertz increases" unless he's cruising, say, AMD's web site. But that's okay. Because if Mac OS X scales processor-wise as we think it will, we have just one thing to say: ship the beta, ship the final, and bring on the quad-boxes, baby...

Opinions are funny things; everyone's got one, and there's no accounting for taste. Still, even given the vast range of opinion when it comes to style, if there are any people left who won't admit that Apple's at the forefront of the computer industry fashion-wise, they're probably also members of the Flat Earth Society. Every single product in Apple's product line is a paragon of fashionable design, and last Wednesday's product announcements should make that fact all the clearer.

But while Apple's products are undeniably the style leaders of the industry, some people feel that its iCEO is one big Fashion Don't. That's right; while Steve's Reality Distortion Field is capable of making otherwise rational human beings suddenly start spending the kids' college funds on small cube-shaped computers, it's apparently not able to stop the likes of the Financial Times from tossing him in the "Worst-Dressed CEOs" category. Oh, the humanity! If we hadn't read it ourselves at Go2Mac, we'd never have believed it.

Then again, now that we've dug a little deeper and looked at FT's CEO fashion criteria, we have to say, those guys are in desperate need of a clue or three. Apparently Steve's on the worst-dressed list because he's refused to "take the more conservative option" when it comes to personal appearance. In FT's opinion, if you're a CEO, jeans and sneakers are off-limits: "Steve Jobs, chief executive of Apple, has evolved, but from the way he was dressing, you couldn't tell whether he was an executive, a pop star or a guru." Well, duh, people-- he's all three, and that's why the fans love him-- and why Apple's doing so well after hitting that scary low point three years ago. We sense a serious misunderstanding of the computer culture as a whole, and Apple's culture specifically. (You can just hear the beige emanating from the desks of the FT people, can't you?)

It gets better: "Executives must not sacrifice their credibility and personal power by wearing clothes that are too relaxed to command respect." Because we all remember just how many Macs Apple sold when the far more suitably-clad Gil Amelio was calling the shots, right? And of course, we definitely all respected and trusted him in his three-piece suit. If you ask us, Steve should be proud as hell for being labeled "worst-dressed" by the suit-addled clowns at FT. After all, he commands respect the old-fashioned way: he earns it.

Here's a quickie that borders on the surreal: eagle-eyed faithful viewer Joey Nelson spotted something rather interesting about Apple's Pro Mouse White Paper. On the surface, the PDF document does pretty much what you'd expect: it describes the features of the new Pro Mouse in commendable detail. The bulk of its eleven-page length explores the advantages of the optical mouse over its more traditional ball-based brethren, describes the innovations Apple made to the existing technology (including improvements to the onboard digital signal processor and a redesigned lens), and explains the other features the company added to this impressive little rodent-- like a thinner USB cable for easier handling, the unique "buttonless" design, and the handy tension dial on its base to allow for easier clicking by users with smaller hands and/or a lighter touch. That's all well and good.

The bit that got us wondering, though, was the small-print legal statement on the last page. After the copyright info and the standard disclaimer about the material being provided for "information purposes only" and Apple assuming "no liability related to its use," there's a somewhat startling conclusion: "Apple does not recommend allowing an elephant to operate a Mac in any environment." Now, apart from our gut reaction that such a statement seems woefully unfair to the Mac-using elephant population, we couldn't help wondering, like Joey, whether Apple's legal department may indeed have a sense of humor after all.

Incidentally, the appearance of the elephant isn't as bizarre as we may have made it sound. The page before the disclaimer is devoted to the Pro Mouse's durability, noting that the outer shell "can withstand 700 pounds of force," which is allegedly strong enough that "an elephant stepping on the shell would just mush [ed. note: obviously an engineering term] it into the ground." So the elephant doesn't just come from out of nowhere (though that'd be a neat trick). Still, we can't help but wonder whether Apple's legal team is less stony-faced than its recent actions may have led us all to believe. Unless, of course, that elephant disclaimer was made in earnest, but that's too far-fetched a scenario even for us to swallow.