Faithful viewers already know that we at AtAT are huge fans of Apple's PowerBooks; in fact, AtAT is produced entirely on a Duo 280c when we're broadcasting from the road. Now, while we love our Duo, we've got to admit that it's getting a little long in the tooth. Not being able to run any PPC software is starting to become a problem. However, we've been holding off on replacing the lovable little LC040 laptop, because our two biggest concerns are physical size and cost. (That pretty much eliminates the PowerBook G3 Series from the running.) We like the now-discontinued 2400, but we're a little tired of buying obsolete equipment; and besides, we're really interested in seeing what Apple manages to scrape together for the fourth part of its product strategy-- that consumer-level portable that has been dubbed the "eMac."

For the longest time, it's been rumored that when the eMac surfaces next year, it will be based on the eMate's funky form factor, but it'll run a slimmed-down version of the Mac OS, commonly referred to as "Allegro Lite." Allegro Lite was supposedly going to be Apple's answer to Windows CE, but some news over at Mac OS Rumors indicates that next year's consumer portables won't run Allegro Lite after all; instead, they'll run the full-fledged Mac OS, in all its glory. Suddenly the eMac sounds less like a Newton/eMate replacement and more like a low-cost PowerBook. If that's true, the eMac will be a terrific option for schools looking for eMate-style portables that are first-class citizens on their Mac networks; no new applications or operating system to worry about.

Unfortunately, that could also mean that many of the useful features of the MessagePad and eMate won't exist in the eMac. Will it support handwriting recognition? Can it be powered on and off in a second? Will it have a hard drive instead of flash RAM, which would mean it wouldn't be nearly as rugged as the eMate? We won't know the answers until Apple actually announces just what the eMac is, and while that could come as soon as the MacWorld Expo in a couple of weeks (it is supposed to be more consumer-oriented this year), we're not holding our breath. Still, the possibilities are intriguing enough that we're certainly looking forward to hearing more. In the meantime, we're sure our trusty Duo will have no trouble pulling its weight.

Finally, a little high-profile coverage of an interesting case that's been dragging on for years now... How many of you were aware that Microsoft doesn't actually own the rights to the name "Internet Explorer?" That's right; that name isn't trademarked-- at least, not by them. A smallish ISP called SyNet (located in sunny Downers Grove, Illinois) used that name for its custom software installer way back in 1994. Microsoft's web browser didn't surface until 1995, and thus began the legal tussle between SyNet and Microsoft for the right to use the name. What we hadn't heard was that a month ago, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office sided with the little man, and began registration of the trademark to SyNet. A fascinating account of the whole sordid story is available from the Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, the long-fought legal battle bankrupted SyNet a while ago, as it collapsed under the weight of its own legal bills. But the victory must at least give SyNet's founder something to smile about. Unfortunately, while the trademark goes into effect this Tuesday, that day also starts a thirty-day period during which Microsoft (and anyone else) can appeal the decision and try to have it overturned, so it may be a while before we hear the end of this issue. Still, it will be ironic as hell if Microsoft's biggest legal blow is dealt not by the Justice Department, but by a now-defunct ISP whose owner has an axe to grind.

Microsoft's argument against the assigning of the trademark is that the phrase "Internet explorer" is too generic a term to be owned. We've never heard anyone say "Netscape is my Internet explorer of choice" or anything like that. Netscape Navigator, Opera, MacWeb, Lynx, and even Internet Explorer are "web browsers." Who generically refers to them as "Internet explorers?" Other than Microsoft, we mean. But that's pretty much what Microsoft is claiming in their suit. And in typical hyper-hyperbolic fashion, they manage to keep a straight face while claiming that SyNet is "trying to appropriate the English language." Yeah, and letting PC manufacturers choose which browser (er, we mean "Internet explorer") to install on their Windows systems would violate Microsoft's "right to innovate." Lordy, lordy...

Meanwhile, Windows 98 arrived on Thursday to throngs of eager PC users-- who apparently lined up primarily for cheap giveaways and free food, as we've received reports from several CompUSA employees who cite low sales of Windows 98, despite a huge turnout for the unveiling. (CompUSA was selling limited numbers of computers for $98 as a promotional gimmick.) But we at AtAT aren't particularly interested in Windows 98's sales figures; we're much more entertained by the early reports of problems associated with the upgrade.

To Microsoft's credit, there haven't been any widespread serious problems we've heard of yet. The biggest stumbling block appears to be Windows 98's inability to recognize certain modems installed in certain laptops, which functioned properly in Windows 95 before the upgrade. A PC Week Online article quotes several people afflicted by the bug, including some who spent days getting things working again. Still, this strikes us an incredibly nondestructive bug for a Microsoft operating system release; we expected much more from Redmond, even though Windows 98 doesn't really add much architecturally, by any account.

That's why we're curious as to the veracity and scope of another bug reported on MacNN: apparently, certain systems can actually suffer hardware damage as a result of installing the Windows 98 upgrade. They refer to a tech note which warns users of Sager NP8200 and Wedge 466/DX2 computers not to install Windows 98 on those systems, or else "you will not be able to use your computer, even if you reinstall a previous version of Windows." Say what? That's pretty severe. We're not putting too much stock in those reports just yet, since we've never really heard of software damaging hardware (short of monitor damage from running things at an unsupported scan rate). But we have no doubt that if it's possible, Microsoft could find a way to do it-- they're that good.