Does everyone remember when Apple got slapped with no fewer than four class action lawsuits over a span of mere days for allegedly making "false and misleading statements" about its financial prospects and thus bilking investors out of zillions of dollars? Well, it's been three whole months since that happened, and we don't mind telling you that we were starting to get a little worried-- not about Apple, mind you, because we figure the Mothership's more-than-capable lawyers have the situation well in hand. No, in a textbook example of classic "Me Generation" selfishness, we've been worried entirely about ourselves. Ninety days, after all, is a long time to go without any new class action drama, and we wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that we're now suffering from some icky deficiency or other. "Drama rickets," or whatever.

So, for our health's sake, we're pleased to hear that Apple is now the defendant in yet another class action-- and, better yet, this one has nothing to do with shareholder fraud (which is nice, because, frankly, that angle was feeling pretty played). According to MacCentral, this time around Apple is being sued for not fully supporting Mac OS X on older G3-based Macs, as it promised to back in 1998. And there is something to that argument, because there are certain indisputable facts, here: the original Bondi Blue iMac, for instance, is still listed as a supported system for Mac OS X, but that operating system lacks hardware acceleration support for its particular video circuitry, making tasks like QuickTime playback painfully slow (compared to on the same hardware under Mac OS 9) and the use of certain "key technologies" like OpenGL effectively impossible.

Now, we imagine that Apple might have a pretty decent defense of "hey, it's coming, people; cool your jets and call off the sharks" if it weren't for the fact that, a few weeks ago, the company publicly admitted that further Mac OS X support for the ATI RAGE II+, IIc, Pro, Pro Turbo, LT Pro, and Mobility chipsets is "not planned." Minor tactical error, that, since now it looks to us like all the evidence necessary to beat Apple in court is available from the company's own web site; about the only way Apple could be more accommodating is by lumping it all together at http://www.apple.com/smokinggun/.

We're looking forward to seeing how this particular case plays out, given the evidence that Apple probably did violate California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act by not fully supporting "supported" hardware as it implied it would (and, more importantly, by not planning to support it at any point in the future). If we had to guess at an outcome, it'd probably involve the case being dropped after Apple pledges to include better support for those older chipsets (as well as certain currently unsupported DVD decoders) in a future Mac OS X point release. That would, at least, be the closest thing to a win-win scenario possible, and we're basically wide-eyed optimists at heart. As for the potential lack of drama we might suffer if the case gets dropped, well, heck, we're willing to take that risk. We can just take supplements or something.

For pigskin fans, Sunday is the holiest of holy days; so, too, for people who love TV commercials. Yes, we know people who actually tape the Big Game and then fast forward through all that tedious "football" stuff just to see the ads. Heck, despite the fact that the Patriots somehow managed to shoehorn themselves into the show, we, ourselves, don't have a whole lot of interest in Sunday's match beyond whether or not its outcome means we win a little extra pocket money in the office pool.

We might have been able to scrape up a little more enthusiasm if Apple had seen fit to shell out some crazy ducats for an ad slot, like it did a few years ago to show that originally-only-for-the-'net HAL commercial, or way back in 1984 when it showed-- well, "1984." But unfortunately, while some of us were still entertaining vain hopes that Apple would stake out a 60-second spot to push the new iMac or maybe run down some of those Macintosh myths, MacMinute confirms that the last Super Bowl ad slot has been purchased-- and it didn't go to Apple. So don't expect any groundbreaking marketing messages from Cupertino during this Sunday's festivities.

Disappointing, isn't it? After all, if ever there was a time for Apple to blow a chunk of that $4 billion war chest on a spiffy new Super Bowl ad, you'd think this would be it. Apple has retail stores; they've never been advertised. Mac OS X is out, after a few bug-fix releases it mostly works, it now ships as the default Mac operating system, and there are even some apps for it; again, there's been no mention of any of this on the airwaves. And granted, Apple's already selling new iMacs faster than it can build them, but still, we wouldn't mind actually seeing one on the tube every once in a while; why not during the big game?

Sure, the economy's not in the greatest shape right now, but we just figured that since the company has so much cash in the bank, this might be a nice opportunity to spend some of it on a little extra mind share. Ah, well; we're sure that Apple has its reasons; presumably they needed to spend the money on more important things. Maybe Steve's Gulfstream needed a tune-up or something...

Far be it from us to send you off on your weekend pondering evil thoughts, but we found this so incomprehensible, we have no choice but to risk it. See, Katie (AtAT's resident fact-checker and Goddess of Minutiae) was clicking around in a desperate attempt to avoid doing any actual work when she stumbled upon a truly frightening sight: an entire CNN article about "Steven," that oh-so-irritating television spokesperson for Dell Computer. Yes, the "dude, you're getting a Dell" guy. We weep for the death of the spirit and the soul.

Granted, to some folks out there, maybe Steven's whole slack-jawed suckup routine is no less offensive than, say, Jeff Goldblum blathering on about people who "don't have an email," but the bit we don't get isn't so much the people who find him no more offensive than other unrepentant we-admit-we're-selling-to-idiots ad campaigns out there-- it's the people who eat this "Steven" stuff up with a spoon. See, this is the scary part: apparently, lots of people just love Steven. They can't get enough of him. Steven gets fan mail; when teenage girls run into the actor who portrays him, they ask for hugs. He is, as perplexing as this is to us, wildly popular with the mass television-watching / computer-buying audience.

We shouldn't be shocked, we suppose, given the mass popularity of 'N SYNC, the fact that Windows holds 95% of the market, or the way that "Suddenly Susan" stayed on the air for something like eighty-six consecutive seasons. Still, somehow we're having a really hard time fathoming how this ad campaign has reportedly doubled Dell's recognition factor and its success is all the buzz in the advertising world. So, what does everyone think? Pact with Satan, right? Has to be.

For what it's worth, Ben Curtis, the actor whose portrayal of Steve has almost-- almost, mind you-- made us regard our own television with dread, "eventually hopes to make independent films." Here's a tip, Ben; if you ever get to live your dream, stay behind the camera. Because to us, it won't matter if you're playing Hamlet with a subtlety and insight that prompts Sir Laurence Olivier's ghost to materialize from the spirit plane just to tell you that you "kick royal ass": to us, you're still going to be that damn Dell guy in desperate need of a savage beatdown with a sack full of doorknobs. It's a sad reality for a 21-year-old acting student to face, but why sugar-coat it?

Meanwhile, Ben remains blissfully unaware of the fact that from now on, he's unlikely ever to be offered roles in any films other than Dude, Where's My Car? 2: Bro, Where Are My Keys? Says he of the Steven/Dell success, "we found an energy that a lot of people can appeal to, and if you don't hate it, you can laugh at it." Needless to say, we're not laughing.