Holy Linda Blair with the split pea soup, Batman, what did Apple eat to prompt such a copious disgorgement of new software over the past day or two? In addition to the aforementioned Mac OS X 10.3.5 Update, the company also spat up a standalone Security Update 2004-08-09 (for Jaguar users), iSync 1.5 (which supports more phones), Java 1.4.2 Update 1 (which "improves stability, memory usage, and correctness"), and DVD Studio Pro 3.0.1 (which improves stability, compile time, and compatibility). On top of that, Apple also shipped Motion and introduced "Production Suite," a discounted bundle of Motion, Final Cut Pro, and DVD Studio Pro. After horking up that much software, the company should really try to settle its stomach with a little music. Luckily, it's got a ton of tunes to choose from.

That's right, folks, we're glossing over the details of all that new software through the deft use of a single barf joke. (Don't try this at home, kiddies; we're professionals.) Why? Because point release updates, bundles of existing software, and the shipment of previously announced new products are all ratings poison to an audience of drama fiends, so we're shoving all that aside in favor of harping on Apple's other press release-- the one about the iTunes Music Store finally topping a million available songs in its catalog. There's something inherently dramatic about reaching a round-number milestone-- c'mon, you watch your car's odometer roll over to the next multiple of 10,000 just like the rest of us-- and our audience will not be denied.

Well, until you start asking for Popsicles again. Those are ours, dammit. They're an essential component of the production process.

So anyway, a million songs; pretty nifty, right? And Apple makes a big thing about how this makes the iTMS "the first and only online digital music service to offer consumers a million song catalog"-- the key word being "consumers," we suppose, which may leave OD2/Loudeye out of the equation. See, those guys technically offer their catalog to companies who want to slap together, say, the Oxy® No-Zit Hit Palace or whatever, because everyone knows that these days any company without a downloadable music web site may as well be bartering twigs for pebbles around that new-fangled invention they call "fire." Regardless, OD2 recently talked smack about how it's going to be the "biggest Internet music service in the world" by having 1.3 million songs in its catalog "later this year"-- but apparently "later" isn't here yet, so Apple's claims seems to be legit no matter which way you slice it.

That said, Apple is decidedly vague about which consumers, if any, actually have access to the iTMS's entire million-plus-song catalog. We already know for a fact that the various European stores offer local content that's not available to users of any other localized version, and they also lack a lot of the tunes that are available in the U.S. store; meanwhile, the U.S. store can't access any of the European-localized stuff, either. So when Apple says it has "more than one million songs available," is it referring to a grand total only completely accessible to a U.S. resident who summers in France, winters in Germany, and occasionally stops in at Old Blighty for a Quake 3 deathmatch weekend with the Queen?

Maybe not; while The Register confirms that the million-plus tracks aren't available to UK customers, it reports that we here in the U.S. do have access to a full seven digits' worth of downloady goodness. That implies that the total total, i.e. all songs sold by any iTMS in any country, is decidedly larger; we wonder if it even eclipses that future 1.3 million that OD2 was being so snotty about?

While you're pondering that, if you're living in the U.S., grab $990,000 and start downloading. You've got a lot of work to do.

Okay, folks, once again, we just gotta ask: who are these Mac users who are reading PC Magazine? We've asked a few times in the past, usually in similar circumstances, and every time all we hear is the sound of crickets chirping and then a tumbleweed goes rolling by. But clearly someone with a Mac is reading that fine publication, because the mag has just posted the results of its 17th Annual Reader Satisfaction Survey, which ranks the personal computer manufacturers based on the reported experiences of the people who use their products-- and guess who won the Readers' Choice Award by a landslide?

That's right, folks, Apple ran away with the prize in the desktop and notebook categories, and PC Mag is forced to admit that "evangelism alone can't explain the impressive high marks Apple receives again this year. In nearly every aspect, the company scores higher than any other vendor." The detailed ratings are definitely a reason to grin disconcertingly; Apple scores an "overall rating" of 8.8 out of 10 for desktops (compared to the average of 7.8) and 9.0 for laptops (compared to 8.0). Get more specific and things look even better; for "reliability," Apple scored a 9.0 for desktops and 9.2 for laptops, "at least a point higher than the industry averages." Due to a dearth of responses, Apple wasn't rated on technical support, which is probably just as well; while we've had nothing but good experiences with Apple's support, we've definitely heard a few horror stories from viewers, so it's probably best to leave the illusion intact.

But back to the mystery of just who's reading PC Mag while piloting a Mac. Like we said, lots of scores for Apple weren't tabulated due to a sub-threshold sample size; tellingly, the article is full of notes like "we had fewer than 50 respondents who purchased Apple desktops within the last year, so we couldn't rate the company in this area." So there aren't that many Mac users reading PC Mag-- but more tellingly, while the survey's scores are only reported for "vendors achieving at least 50 responses," the results are "based on answers from 8,250 PC Magazine subscribers." That means there are at least fifty Mac fans out there who don't just read PC Mag-- they actually subscribe to it. Spoooooky.

So if you're one of 'em, own up-- we're just curious, because we feel like we might be missing out on something. (If you're a closet John Dvorak fan, you can leave that part out; we're feeling queasy enough just pondering the mere possibility.) Is there a chance that at least a few of these people are subscribing just to get Apple listed in the annual reader survey? More to the point, what would happen if a bunch of crazy-zealous Mac fans were to subscribe next March or so, just to qualify for the survey? Because this seems like a deck that's very stackable, if enough people have the will (and the cash).

Then again, why bother? It's hard to imagine results much better than Apple got already. So thanks, mysterious Mac-using PC Magazine subscribers-- whoever you are.

So everyone, including PC Magazine subscribers, apparently thinks that Macs are super-cool and ultra-reliable and at the very least the cat's pajamas, if not the contents of the whole freakin' feline sleepwear walk-in closet. Great. Now, uh, suppose we'll actually be able to buy one anytime soon? Because to hear Think Secret tell it, you'd think that scoring a new Mac these days ranks in difficulty somewhere up there alongside memorizing and reciting all of Paradise Lost or using Windows for more than half an hour without twitching. Well, okay, maybe things aren't quite that bad, but reportedly "channel availability of several Apple products is expected to be constrained during August and possibly into September."

Let's check the list, shall we? First up: Power Macs. While everyone knows that dual 2.5 GHz models are harder to find than a porcupine wearing Prada, word has it that the low-end dual 1.8 GHz configuration has also been "extremely constrained since the product first started shipping," with hundreds of units backordered at Apple's distributors-- and apparently the mid-range dual 2.0 GHz systems aren't exactly plentiful, either. Resellers claim that "almost nothing has moved" since the new configurations were unveiled two months ago, and "all estimated ship dates keep getting moved further and further back"-- which is odd, given that the Apple Store only quotes a 3-5 day wait for new low-end and mid-range Power Macs ordered directly from Apple. Why do we suspect that someone's scribbling down notes for exhibit Q in the reseller lawsuit?

As for iMacs, well, you already know the score on those-- nothing, not even preorders, until the G5 version surfaces next month. And since people can't get their grubby mitts on Power Macs or iMacs right now, some people shopping for Mac desktops have little choice but to pick up an eMac; luckily "Apple appears to be keeping up fairly well with demand," but Apple's margins may have taken a hit this quarter as a result-- if we didn't think that a lot of customers were deciding to get portables instead.

As far as availability of laptops is concerned, it's a crap shoot: some resellers are lucky, others not so much. Generally speaking, though, if you're in the market for a new PowerBook or iBook, you probably won't have much trouble finding what you need. Some dealers report shortages of 12-inch PowerBooks or high-end 1.2 GHz iBooks, but for the most part, you should be good to go. But are you sure you wouldn't rather lug around an Xserve? Because after a late start out of the gate, "availability is good." C'mon, just imagine popping one of those puppies onto the desk at a meeting.

Overall, the picture isn't exactly dire (especially if you're buying direct from Apple, apparently), but still, we can't help thinking that if someone wants a new Mac of a particular variety, it might be nice if he or she could, y'know, just go out and buy already. Geez, they're not iPods, for Pete's sake.