Hey, remember the rumors floating around a few months ago about how Apple had intentionally crippled its new blue and white G3 Power Macs so that they couldn't take a G4 upgrade? The conspiracy theory went a little something like this: companies testing prototype G4 upgrade cards had no trouble getting them to work in "icebox" Power Macs, until Apple released a particular firmware update. Once that update was applied, the G4 chips in the upgrade cards were no longer recognized and the system wouldn't boot. So the conclusion was that Apple did this on purpose, and was launching a pre-emptive strike on the upgrade card makers in hopes of boosting sales of actual Power Mac G4s to people who would otherwise have just bought G4 cards for their existing machines. Sneaky? Sure. Diabolical? Indubitably. Downright dirty pool? Heck yeah.

But true? Probably not. Yes, Apple's made unpopular choices in the past that have alienated its fiercely loyal user base, but actually to kill off the possibility of upgrading a Power Mac G3 to a G4 processor would be a plan whose endearingness to the customer base is on par with Monty Burns' scheme to block out the sun in hopes of driving up electricity usage. The last time we checked, Mr. Burns wasn't on Apple's board of directors, and Steve Jobs isn't quite megalomaniacal enough where he'd risk assassination. (Well, there were those death threats when he cancelled Mac cloning, but there weren't any actual attempts.) And now new evidence is seeping to the surface which strongly suggests that any G4-disabling in the firmware update was accidental, coincidental, and now history.

First, there's Robert Morgan's latest RFI Report, which covers all kinds of juicy topics, but the relevant bit of info is that apparently whatever broke the G4s in that infamous firmware update only affected Mac OS 8.6. Reportedly, folks testing G4 upgrades in firmware-updated Power Macs are able to run beta versions of Mac OS 9 with no trouble. (At least, no more trouble than running beta system software would normally bring you.) On top of that, Mac OS Rumors includes an eyewitness account of an early G4 upgrade working in a firmware-updated blue and white G3, running just as stably as it did in a beige G3. So unless Apple plans to break things again before the final version of Mac OS 9 ships, we can be pretty sure that the rumors of an intentional crippling are false. Unless Steve got cold feet after reading the ferocious responses to the rumor on the 'net and pulled the plug on the nefarious scheme...

Suppose Steve Jobs is still losing sleep over that whole Mike Dell incident? You remember the one: back in Apple's darkest days, at some press conference, a reporter asked Mr. Dell what he'd do if he were running Apple. His response was that he'd shut down the company and give the money back to the stockholders. Well, gee, given that at the time Apple's stock was trading at around 22 and now it's hovering at just over 60, that probably wouldn't have been a wise move. But anyway, it was obvious that Dell's comment rubbed Steve the wrong way, since shortly thereafter he unveiled the new build-to-order online Apple Store-- and claimed it was better than Dell's.

The interesting thing is, in at least some ways, apparently PC Data agrees. PC Data is that industry group who keeps revealing that the iMac continues to kick butt in retail sales, but they do more than just track store purchases. According to MacCentral, they've gone ahead and ranked e-commerce web sites, and according to their list, the Apple Store beats Dell's web site by a smidge, based on the number of "unique visitors" passing through. (The AtAT staff, for instance, visits the Apple Store a lot, and since we're all unique in our own special ways, we assume we're doing our part to increase those numbers.) Dell's 1,308,000 unique visitors garnered the company the number 24 spot, while Apple's 2,323,000 let it squeak ahead to number 23. Perhaps Steve is doing a little superior dance right now.

Of course, when it comes to raw sales, Dell's still beating the pants off of Apple; only 1.2 percent of the Apple Store's visitors actually bought something, while Dell's buyer percentage is 2.1. Plus, Dell just announced better-than-expected profits, up 58 percent from the same quarter a year ago, and they sell some $30 million worth of equipment a day online. (And unlike Apple, when Dell beats the Street, its stock goes up.) So Steve's got a lot of work to do if he's really serious about beating Dell; unique visitors and days of inventory aren't the only measures of comparative success. But it's not a bad start.

So here we thought we'd be flamed mercilessly for wasting people's time with our mostly off-topic rant about our problems with a certain very large consumer goods department store, when instead we received a ton of feedback from viewers similarly burned by the Lamer Side of Sears. Evidently Sears is a tad too large for its own good or something, since its 800+ stores still seem to be using some seriously antiquated order entry software which has a propensity to "lose" orders every once in a while-- which is why our fridge, scheduled for delivery to our shiny new studio commissary last Monday, failed to materialize and doomed us to three days of canned soup, microwaved dinners and takeout. (Not that that's a terrible fate or anything, but cold drinks are nice to have around when all you're doing is lugging boxes.)

So to all of the other people out there who have had less-than-stellar experiences with Sears in the past, we feel for you. This time, however, we feel that our problem was resolved in an adequate manner. Sure, when we called to report the missing fridge we spent a considerable length of time in phone tree hell, but once we managed to talk to the salesperson who sold us the fridge, she promptly put us in the queue for a replacement. The earliest she could manage was Thursday, which wasn't great, but it's what we could get. Our delivery window was 9-11AM, and we're relieved to say that at 9:10 a truck pulled up bearing a fridge slightly better than the one we ordered and paid for. It's installed and cooling down, and soon we'll be able to stock it with Tater Tots and grape Kool-Aid like civilized non-scavenging people. Situation resolved, and quite nicely.

And as for our surmising that people buying iMacs at Sears might be in for similar nightmares, longtime faithful viewer Charles Martin assures us that it's unlikely. Charles trains the Sears salespeople in his area to make them more Apple-savvy, and he states that iMacs are stocked in Sears stores-- at least the ones he works for. When a customer buys an iMac at Sears, he or she gets a pickup slip, takes it downstairs, and receives the iMac live and in person to take home and love. The only time any sort of delivery is involved is when the required flavor is out of stock, in which case the customer gets a phone call to come in and pick up the merchandise when it's delivered to the store. So buying an iMac at Sears is a fairly safe thing to do, at least as far as the "lost order" phenomenon is concerned. Thanks to Charles for clearing that up. Now excuse us, as we go to stock up on every known variety of vegan junk food...