If you just emerged from a five-year-long coma, allow us to fill you in on a few surprises. First of all, the Macarena did not make the leap from international dance fad to enduring and timeless art form. Secondly, "The Single Guy" got cancelled. (We know, we were as shocked as you are.) And lastly, remember how the PowerPC's superior RISC architecture was eventually going to bury Intel's aging x86 platform? Well, we recommend that you be sitting down when you take a look at the relative clock speeds of Macs and Wintels currently available. And maybe have some Tums handy.

Now, before you panic, it's important to keep in mind that clock speed is just one part of the performance equation, and Apple has demonstrated that at some tasks, an 867 MHz PowerPC G4 (yes, we're up to G4s now) will whip the silicon pants off of a 1.8 GHz-- uh, that's "1800 MHz" for the coma survivors-- Pentium 4. Apple is even making tentative moves towards countering the "Megahertz Myth" by educating the unwashed masses to the fact that clock speed isn't everything. Still, if you're like most people, you're having a teensy bit of trouble getting past that whole "more than twice the frequency" thing, and we don't blame you. So why isn't Apple working harder to get the word out about the Megahertz Myth?

Well, it could just be a return to the classic ineffectual Apple marketing of old, but we doubt it; believe it or not, Apple has actually made great strides in advertising since '96. Yet aside from the traditional PPC-vs.-Intel "bake-off" demos at every Macworld Expo (which is the very definition of "preaching to the converted"), the company hasn't really torn into the whole clock speed issue in a way that might reach the average shmoe. If Mac OS Rumors is correct, though, that might all be part of Apple's Grand Scheme for Planetary Domination.

As faithful viewer Paul Ferro pointed out, MOSR now has more preliminary info on the next major PowerPC revision: the 64-bit G5, which may ship as early as the beginning of next year. Meanwhile, Intel's new 64-bit chip architecture the Itanium, is the official "Day Late, Dollar Short" poster chip. It may be fast overall (actually, we hear it really isn't), but since it's only currently available in 733 and 800 MHz flavors, while the company's older Pentium 4 runs a full gigahertz faster, Intel's the one that's going to have to start countering the Megahertz Myth pretty soon if it ever wants to sell Itaniums. So Apple's wise to wait and let Intel do the heavy lifting.

More importantly, though, by the time the G5 ships, it'll reportedly be running at no less than 1.2 GHz itself, while the Itanium probably won't have hit 1 GHz yet. In that case, the Megahertz Myth will suddenly start to work in Apple's favor-- and people who actually do the research and compare real-world performance will still wind up seeing that the Mac is faster. Of course, Intel is flat-out stating that the Itanium will never replace the 32-bit Pentium family, claiming that "the IA-32 architecture has a strong future roadmap and will continue to provide value to its target market segments." (In other words, "We're going to keep selling the P4, because who's going to want to buy an 800 MHz chip? Other than Mac people?") In that case, Apple will likely still be competing against the Pentium 4-- but at least then, the company will be able to leverage the 64-bit vs. 32-bit thing. Why wouldn't that sway the average consumer? After all, it's twice as many bits!

Call it a transparent attempt to suck up if you must (we plead the fifth), but more often than not, we think Apple's legal team-- the FINEST IN THE WORLD, by the way-- is getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop when it comes to public perception. In some circles, Apple's lawyers have a reputation for being cold, humorless automatons with zero patience for Mac-fan enthusiasm, who would just as soon slap you with a cease-and-desist order as look at you. Considering certain harsh realities of intellectual property law, we've always thought that was an unjust characterization... personally, we've always found that Apple Legal has been remarkably understanding and forgiving of entities that might, for example, habitually portray its leader as a megalomaniacal extraterrestrial bent on taking over the world-- to pull a fictional scenario out of thin air, of course. And given the final outcome of the Worker Bee case, maybe now people will start referring to the "Kinder, Gentler Apple Legal." Hug a lawyer today!

What, you haven't heard? Apple settled its case against Juan Guttierez, its ex-employee formerly known as "Worker Bee" who was busted for leaking trade secrets. Faithful viewer Jason Broccardo tipped us off to a CNET article about the case's resolution. It may not have all the details, but from what we can make out, Juan has agreed to "turn over any confidential information he still had in his possession" and keep any additional Apple trade secrets to himself; in return, it appears that all of his vital and non-vital organs (yes, including generative ones) remain both in place and functional. Indeed, Juan's lawyer describes the erstwhile Worker Bee as "grateful" that Apple essentially let him off with a slap on the wrist and a promise never to do that again. Things could have gotten much, much uglier.

For those of you who think this must be a PR stunt on Apple's part specifically to make its legal department appear warm and huggable (thus lulling potential lawsuit targets into a false sense of security), it's worth noting that this deal with Worker Bee was apparently worked out back in April; it happened so quietly, evidently no one noticed until now. PR stunts generally don't happen quietly, seeing as that sort of defeats the purpose. So maybe this really is the softer side of Apple Legal shining through. In any case, have we mentioned our unwavering opinion that, despite their unfounded sour reputations, Apple's lawyers are THE FINEST IN THE WORLD?

Make no mistake: it may be summer reruns season for most of the networks, but "Redmond Justice" is still alive and kicking. (Between that and new episodes of "South Park," what more could we want, televisually speaking?) In the last major plot twist, a supposedly Microsoft-friendly appeals court overturned Judge Jackson's order that the company be split in two. But was it a victory for the Redmond Giant? Hardly; while the appellate court ruled that Jackson's remedy be thrown out (purely because of the judge's misconduct), it did affirm that Microsoft was a monopoly and had broken the law by abusing said power. The case was kicked back to a lower court (sans Jackson) to decide on an apt punishment-- and a breakup is still a possibility. Needless to say, Microsoft's spin doctors had their work cut out for them that day.

So here's the latest in this roller coaster ride: faithful viewer Phil Corlis informed us that Microsoft has officially brought the Supreme Court into the picture again. Remember back when Microsoft lobbied successfully to keep the case at the appellate level, because it thought that the appeals court would be more charitable than the Supreme Court? Well, things change; after its surprising June Smackdown, the company has evidently decided that the highest court in the land may be its only hope.

According to an Associated Press article, Microsoft has asked Rehnquist and the gang to overturn the entire ruling altogether. As in, "please rule that we're not a monopoly at all and we promise we'll be your best friend and water your plants when you're on vacation and all that good stuff." The basis for this extraordinary request? Microsoft is arguing that Judge Jackson sinned so grievously by granting interviews to the press before the case was over, "his entire ruling should be thrown out." In other words, they've given up on trying to prove any actual innocence and are now going for the Shameless Technicality play.

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft has also asked that the case not be booted back to the lower court until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take the case. Cue the flashing red "STALL TACTIC" sign; since the Court of Appeals refused to grant Microsoft's request to reconsider Jackson's ruling that bundling Internet Explorer with Windows was illegal, Microsoft is clearly using the Supreme Court as a convenient way to stretch out the case until it can get the massively-bundled Windows XP done and out the door sans court-mandated interference. "Stall and Ship Anyway": it's the oldest move in Microsoft's playbook, but it hasn't failed yet. Have you ever wished that due process of law could take just a teensy little vacation?