They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right? Well, if that's the case, then Apple got its valentine from Microsoft a day early-- in the form of a big, wet kiss known as Windows XP. Yes, Bill Gates finally took the wraps off of his company's next operating system, and we admit that until that momentous occasion, despite the similarity of "XP" to "X,", we still weren't entirely convinced that Microsoft was just planning to clone Mac OS X outright. But if we were still unsure that Microsoft planned to capitalize on Mac OS X's look, feel, buzz, and feature set, any lingering doubts evaporated in a puff of smoke as soon as details about the XP unveiling started to emerge.

Some of the "borrowed" elements are extremely subtle. Faithful viewer The Professor noticed that on Microsoft's Windows XP preview page, Microsoft showcases a yellow flower in the "My Pictures" screenshot. Now take a look at the screenshot of the Mac OS X desktop featured on Apple's site. Well, glory be; a yellow flower. Fancy that. "Just a coincidence," you say? Well, perhaps-- but heck, Microsoft's rip-off artists haven't even limited themselves to Mac OS X for "inspiration." How else can you explain the duck? Faithful viewer Gene Willickers was the first of many, many people to write in about the duck. Take a look at the first screenshot on the very same Windows XP page; doesn't that multiple users login screen look an awful lot like Mac OS 9's? More specifically, doesn't the duck icon that "Connor" has chosen to represent himself seem intensely familiar?

Small details, we know, and taken by themselves they wouldn't amount to much evidence. But it's all the little things taken together as a whole that make Microsoft's copying of Apple so clear. After all, why unveil this new OS just a month before Mac OS X is slated to ship? Why the drastic change in naming conventions to something with an "X" in it? Why a new, "streamlined" interface? Why name said interface "Luna," a word suspiciously close to "Aqua"? Why is the "Recycle Bin" now in the lower right corner of the screen? And, most importantly, why the same duck? We could go on and on (and we often do).

And, in case we thought we were just being overly paranoid (as if there is such a thing), faithful viewer Barry Hamill pointed out that even Windows developers can see right through Bill's plan. A ZDNet News article about the Windows XP launch quotes an anonymous developer as saying, "This is so sad. They're just lamely trying to copy Steve Jobs' Apple presentation-- right down to the guy having a black shirt and black pants. It's almost like Windows ME 2. Or as Apple might call it, Windows Me Too." Burn!!

Evidently times are tough for John Dvorak, because the crusty pundit who belts out tired commentary for PC Magazine has once again decided to promote web traffic by falling back on his long-standing crutch: cheap controversy. Everybody knows that a foaming anti-Apple article will attract droves of traffic from indignant Mac users; no matter how clearly we know we should stay away, we go for the flame-bait like a moth diving into a bug-zapper. And Dvorak knows that the more outrageous the anti-Mac claim, the higher his hit counter will soar-- after all, this is the guy who predicted that the iMac would be a dismal flop, and then went on to far more advanced levels of controversy by lambasting the iBook for being "too girly."

Well, the man's hit a new low; as faithful viewer Timothy Thomas informed us, in a recent article, Dvorak decides to lay the blame for the current slump in the personal computer market squarely on Apple's doorstep. See if you can follow his reasoning, here: 1) Sales are down because "computers are not fun anymore." 2) The reason that computers aren't fun anymore is because they're too complex. 3) The reason that computers are too complex is because they ditched that simple, easy-as-pie command line interface (DOS rocks!!) and moved to the "increased complexity" of the graphical user interface. 4) Therefore, since the Macintosh introduced the world to the first commercially available GUI, the current computer sales slump is entirely the fault of "the Mac and the people who bought it." Get it? Well, try getting a frontal lobotomy first and then see if that helps you follow the logic any better.

See, Dvorak is either smoking something entirely too potent, or he's just being utterly shameless about controversy for traffic's sake, because he goes so far as to call the original Macintosh "the first 'un-fun' computer"-- due, of course, to its lack of that oh-so-fun command line. Furthermore, the Mac didn't even let you experience the heady joys of installing "a handmade BIOS" the way that the IBM PC did. Who were these twisted freaks who actually bought a computer that allowed people to use it without first learning a programming language or earning a degree in electronics?

As usual, reading Dvorak's article (or, worse yet, actually emailing the man about it) will only encourage him to pull similar stunts in the future-- but heck, it is an entertaining glimpse into the mind of a raving psychotic, so if you feel like checking it out, we sure aren't going to stop you. And if you really want to get on Dvorak's good side, judging by his love for DOS and burning his own ROMs, he'd probably really appreciate a tax audit, a series of painful rabies shots, and a full-body wax if you can arrange it.

So this year's Oscar nominations are out, and every year it's the same old thing: AtAT gets snubbed. Yes, once again, the Academy has refused to bestow our little production with even one single nomination. Not a one. Not even for a technical award, for crying out Pete's sake. And no matter how many times they drag out that tired, old excuse about how AtAT is "not actually a motion picture, blah blah blah," we know what's really going down; it all comes down to politics in the end. (After all, how else can you explain the otherwise inexplicable absence of the feel-good movie of the year, Dude, Where's My Car?)

But even as the Academy continues its appalling yet long-standing practice of blacklisting both Apple-themed soap operas and movies featuring moronic vehicularly-deprived stoners foiling alien invaders, at least the Mac community has something to like about this year's nominations. As faithful viewer Jonathan Fletcher kindly pointed out, Ridley Scott came out quite well. Unless you're a hardcore film buff, you probably only know the man for his best-known work-- Apple's legendary "1984" commercial that heralded the advent of the Macintosh. But as it turns out, Mr. Scott has also directed some feature films in his day. We doubt that you would have seen any of them, but they include titles like Alien, Blade Runner, and something called Thelma & Louise, which we figure was probably a big-screen adaptation of "The Jeffersons" that focuses on the relationship between Weezy and Florence's younger sister.

Anyway, Ridley eventually went on to direct some art-house flick called Gladiator that apparently came out last year, and the Academy seems to think it was good enough to justify a whopping twelve nominations. Good for him! We're always happy to see talent rewarded, and if Gladiator shows even a tenth of the genius that Ridley managed to cram into "1984," then it's clearly deserving of the honor. Incidentally, we hear that the man has a new movie out now called Hannibal, which is probably a documentary about elephants or something. If you want to see the latest work by the "1984" guy, hunt around and maybe you'll find a theater that's showing it.