It's the day after the Big Game, and seeing as we just happen to live in a hidden underground concrete bunker right outside the Boston city limits, we're witnessing the aftermath of last night's outcome first hand... and folks, it ain't pretty. We'd estimate that fully half of the local population is still recovering from major cardiopulmonary trauma and/or advanced states of shock-- in fact, if those hapless sports fans hadn't cushioned their systems via the liberal ingestion of alcoholic beverages, we'd probably be watching the authorities cart loads of corpses through the streets right about now. (Strangely enough, despite the massive psychic shock they've all suffered, we'd have to classify most of the area's denizens as "knackered but happy.")

As for us, we're fine-- thanks for asking. Indeed, we're largely symptom-free after last night's stunning upset: no contusions from our jaws hitting the floor, no fainting spells or hyperventilation, not even a slightly increased pulse rate and a mild case of dry mouth. Why? Well, we'd probably be a lot more floored by the fact that the Patriots actually won last night's Super Bowl if we hadn't already witnessed ZDNet's David Coursey saying nice things about the Mac. Heck, between that and Amazon posting a profit, we doubt anything will surprise us ever again (but if the Cubs ever win the World Series during our lifetimes, send an ambulance just in case).

If you still haven't come to terms with Mr. Coursey's newfound Mac tolerance, you should probably stay well away from his latest article, because as faithful viewer Barton points out, it's a veritable orgy of warm Mac fuzzies that may be hazardous to your health. Even the article's title serves as a warning label for the wan and easily shockable: "Why I just love the new iMac (and why you might, too)." That's a far cry from his original iMac reaction; about the most negative thing he can say about it now is that there's no good way to sync a PDA with Microsoft Office under Mac OS X-- which is, of course, totally true, and hardly a scathing indictment. For crying out Pete's sake, the man's even got before and after photos of his desk, just to show how much nicer the iMac is than his clunky old Wintel. And when a self-confessed "loyal Windows user" starts noticing things like how Microsoft's applications use ugly fonts, well, something's definitely amiss.

We basically only see two possibilities, here: either Steve Jobs zapped Coursey with a far larger dose of Reality Distortion Field energy than we originally suspected, or Mr. "Windows Yay!" really is well on the road to utter conversion. Either way, he's responsible for the Mac getting some positive press among the heathens, which is always nice to see; here's hoping that these glowing reports continue in weeks two, three, and four of his "month with a Mac" project. Personally, we anticipate many more kind words. After all, he hasn't even played with iMovie yet...

As much as we like the functional design of the new iMac, there's no doubt that there's still some room for improvement. Possible enhancements range from the blindingly obvious (e.g. an optical drive mounted high enough that it can't smack into the keyboard when its tray is ejected) to the arguably superfluous but nice (e.g. a third joint on the display arm that would allow the screen to swivel left to right independently of the arm) to the outright goofy (e.g. an enclosure made entirely out of Gruyère cheese). Probably one of the most obvious improvements coming down the pike, however, is a larger screen.

Granted, the iMac's current display is a solid improvement in size over the previous model's, since a 15-inch LCD is physically larger than a 15-inch CRT because of differences in the way they're measured. The new iMac's screen has a chunk of useable space comparable to a 17-inch CRT while containing only a fraction of the calories. Still, Mac OS X has a "big" interface, so even the iMac's native 1024x768 resolution represents the lower end of the useability spectrum, realistically speaking. (Have you used Mac OS X on an 800x600 original iBook? It's like trying to put on a rubber tuxedo while locked in a burlap sack.)

Plus, screen real-estate is a notoriously one-way street: once you've used a larger screen, reverting to a smaller model feels not unlike being buried alive. Take it from us-- we were all set to get the 17-inch Studio Display, until we spent a few minutes using a Cinema Display at an Apple retail store. Afterwards that 17-incher felt like the 15-inch model, and we just had to go widescreen. Before we knew it, there was a $1500 hole in our budget. We've named it "Theo."

Anyway, after the iMac's previous design essentially locked Apple into providing the same display for three and a half years, this time around, the company got all clever and stuff: now that the display is stuck on the end of that arm-thingy, it's a reasonably simple matter to replace that 15-incher with, say, a 17-inch LCD panel running at 1280x1024, without requiring a complete retooling of the iMac's whole physical design. Just throw some extra sand in the base for stability, and voilà! The next iMac. What could be simpler?

So when will we see a bigger screen perched atop the iMac's shiny metal arm? Well, according to Mac OS Rumors, you shouldn't hold your breath; unless LCD prices really start to plummet, we probably won't see iMacs with either regular 17-inch screens or widescreen 16.3-inch ones until "early 2003"-- but as a little bonus, those models will also pack GeForce 4 MX graphics, USB 2 and FireWire 2, faster memory, and processors running at 1 GHz or higher. An all-Gruyère enclosure, however, is, sadly, not in the cards. Thus is progress in the field of edible Macs dealt another serious blow...

You know, we've decided that we've been way too hard on Dell lately. For a second, we're going to forget that whole thing about Dell basically using Apple as a free R&D department and then releasing cheap knockoffs with all the style and subtlety of a Yugo crashing into a Wal-Mart. That aside, sure, this is the company that unleashed Steven upon the world and doomed us to the risk of hearing irony-free usage of the word "dude" every time we turn on our beloved television set-- and that was, indeed, an evil, naughty thing to do. But was it as evil and naughty as... international terrorism? (For the sake of taste, don't answer that.)

See, while sticking Steven on the airwaves was inherently wrong and an affront to the Light Side of the Force, Dell is now reportedly working to even up its karma count by doing its part in the fight against terrorism. Faithful viewer merz tells us that The Register keenly discovered Dell's subtle plan to ferret out wrongdoing when it took a peek at the company's online order form in the UK. Try to follow along, here: the fourth question in the Export Compliance section of the form asks customers, "will the product(s) be used in connection with weapons of mass destruction, i.e. nuclear applications, missile technology, or chemical or biological weapons purposes?"

Here's the clever bit: customers will have to check "yes" or "no" in order to proceed. So if any of them are, in fact, international terrorists looking for a Wintel box to help them weaponize anthrax spores or build a nuclear warhead, they're totally screwed-- either they'll have to stop their order and go get a PC from another, less-vigilant vendor, or they'll have to check the "yes" box... at which point we can only assume that Dell will immediately forward all details of the transaction to international authorities who can then apprehend the evildoers and deal with them appropriately.

"But AtAT," we hear you ask, "why couldn't the terrorists simply lie and check the 'no' box, instead?" We're glad you asked that, Timmy. Clearly you're unaware that all international terrorists swear a sacred oath never to lie when filling out an online order form. And that's why Dell's plan is utterly and completely foolproof... or just really, really funny. We're not entirely sure which.