Do you know anyone who'll buy any piece of junk they come across that has, say, the South Park kids emblazoned on it? (Not that we aren't fans of South Park; it's a random example.) Because that appears to be the mentality that analysts expect among early Windows 98 buyers; some people will buy any operating system with a Microsoft logo on it. There's some very interesting analysis over in a Reuters article on Yahoo! News.
Chris Le Tocq, an analyst at Dataquest, calls Windows 98 nothing more than "a packaging exercise" which is completely unnecessary for Windows 95 users who have a working system. But despite that assessment, and in spite of the lukewarm reviews we've seen of the product so far, he still expects over five million people to buy the $90 upgrade this year, and another eleven million to shell out the cash next year. Do the math, and you can very quickly see why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world (and climbing). The man sits at the head of an empire that can rake in obscene amounts of cash by sticking a label on a mediocre product, because it'll sell anyway.
This is not to say that we Mac folk don't follow the same instinct—heck, slap a six-color Apple logo on a week-old baguette and wave it around at a users group meeting, and you can bet someone will fork over some cash for it. We just find it interesting that an analyst could say something to the effect of, "Windows 98 brings essentially nothing new to the party. But it'll generate $1.3 billion in revenue anyway." The point is, Microsoft is huge enough and has an installed base wide enough to generate well over a billion dollars just by packaging a collection of bug fixes and a web browser. Now that's mighty impressive.
Oh, The Humanity (6/26/98)
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...
Hardware Damage 98® (6/26/98)
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 problem 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.
Copycat, Copycat (7/15/98)
It's no big secret that Apple's innovations are frequently adopted (or, say, "ripped off") by other companies over time until eventually the appropriated element becomes a standard. Apple introduces the QuickTake, the first consumer-level digital camera, and now there are dozens of the things on the market. The Newton paved the way for the Palm Pilot and Windows CE devices. The PowerBook 5xx series had this cool thing called a trackpad, and now it's hard to find a laptop of any kind without one. The Mac was the first mainstream computer to introduce a standard 3.5" floppy drive; the iMac may be the first to get rid of it. Etc., etc., etc.
So it's not terribly surprising to see O'Grady's PowerPage discuss a Windows CE clone of Apple's revolutionary (and now discontinued) eMate. The eMate, as you probably recall, was a lightweight laptop-handheld hybrid that had a distinctive clamshell design and was intended to be a low-cost portable computer for educational use. Well, when you see the photo of the Dreamwriter IT by NTS Computer Systems over at the PowerPage, we think you'll notice something awfully familiar about this "affordable portable educational computer."
We think the computer industry as a whole should honor Apple by referring to the company as "Apple Computer: Research and Development for the Rest of Us."
Peripherals Galore (7/15/98)
Your friendly neighborhood AtAT staff saw some neat iMac-compatible storage devices at the Expo last week. First, there's the one that everyone's been hearing about—Imation's SuperDisk drive, which reads and writes its own 120 MB disks as well as standard 3.5" floppies. The really cool thing about the drive is that it's seriously made for the iMac—it's bondi blue and ice white, translucent, rounded, and a perfect stylistic complement. Then there was Iomega's USB Zip drive, which is a deep translucent royal blue instead of the solid navy we're used to. And Syquest's 1 GB SparQ for iMac was a bright translucent red. Pretty! (And, presumably, functional.)
While those options are all well and good, MacWEEK's got an article describing even more. For instance, La Cie will be selling external hard drives and DVD-ROM drives that will connect to the iMac's USB port. But the storage option that intrigued us the most was a service called BackJack, which lets Mac users back up their critical files over the Internet, which is the only backup option available to iMac users who don't want to purchase additional hardware. We had also heard that Dantz is planning a special version of its excellent Retrospect backup software that will allow backup to special servers via the Internet.
There's something to be said for such a service; while it's always a good idea for computer users to back up their entire hard disks, many people are content with backing up only their document files, figuring that they can always reload the operating system and all their applications from the original CD-ROMs. Since people using iMacs most likely aren't working on 100 Mb graphics files, an option to let them back up their Quicken and AppleWorks files over the Internet sounds like a neat idea. It even has the added benefit of being an offsite backup; even if your house burns down, those critical files are safe on a server three states away. But we don't know how safe we'd feel storing personal and confidential data on an Internet server. There's always the security/paranoia factor, and backups are supposed to make you feel safer. It'll be interesting to see if such services catch on.
