The legendary carnival showman, P.T. Barnum, once denied saying “there’s a sucker born every minute,” but he was fated to forever have that phrase attached to his name. However, you didn’t have to take Barnum seriously, since he was strictly delivering entertainment. If you didn’t like the show, you didn’t have to see it ever again.

When it comes to Bill Gates and Microsoft, unfortunately, we are stuck with their products, which, as well all know, continue to dominate the personal computer landscape. While a Mac user can easily exist in a Microsoft-free environment by choosing alternatives to Word and Excel when it comes to basic productivity apps, you will find it horrendously difficult to avoid businesses that do not, at least to some extent, depend on Windows and other products from the world’s largest software company.

From banks to restaurants, Windows is deeply entrenched. Even if there are Mac alternatives to the vertical market software these firms use, it may not be cheap or easy to switch. It requires acquiring new equipment, new software licenses and at least some retraining is definitely involved. Macs may be easier to use, but that does not make them simple, particularly for workers who are accustomed to doing things differently.

What many business owners evidently don’t know — or are afraid to admit — is the fact that Microsoft didn’t reach the peak of the mountain by delivering better products. From the very first, they achieved a large portion of their success through misdirection and outright deception.

P.T. Barnum would have been proud of Bill Gates.

Story continued in this week’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter.

One of the earliest features folks embraced when they discovered the Internet was obviously email. As with the rest of the online world, it wasn’t originally designed to accommodate the needs of hundreds of millions of users, and so there were problems. Number one with a bullet is spam, and I won’t even attempt to deal with that mess. Clearly the engineers who continue to work on the technology need to devise something that makes your email more secure and gives you more freedom from endless annoyances, and that also includes malware, although it’s mostly an issue on the Windows side of the planet. At least for now that is.

However, the most troubling issue remains unsolved, and that’s how to make email accounts easier to set up on your Mac or PC. You have two major systems, known as POP and IMAP.

POP, short for Post Office Protocol, the one used by most ISPs and such free services as Yahoo! and Gmail, downloads your email direct to your computer. From there, you’re on your own. If you lose it, and have no backup, that’s too bad. There are options to leave mail on the server with some systems, but if a message is flagged as read, good luck getting it again, unless you check your messages via a Web-based client or another computer.

Of course, if you only manage your email in your browser, the back-end scheme is not important. You probably only care whether it works or not.

POP’s other limitation comes into play when you have more than one device to check your messages. Here if you leave the messages on the server, each computer gets them, but messages flagged as read on one computer aren’t treated that way on another. Sent messages will be found on one computer and not the other. Synchronizing all of this stuff can be a chore and then some, even with a good backup system.

The other popular email system, the one I favor, is IMAP, short for Internet Message Access Protocol. Basically, under IMAP, your messages are all stored on the email server. If you read a message on your MacBook Pro at home, it is flagged as read also on your Windows PC at the office. The response you sent on one computer is found in the Sent mailbox on another.

In theory, IMAP ought to be a simple affair, but it’s not, because different email server software will manage the whole shebang differently. That makes it cumbersome for your email software to figure it all out.

Compounding this mess is the way it’s handled at Gmail’s recently-established IMAP system, where, unlike the common way IMAP is handled, messages aren’t stored in separate folders. Instead they are flagged with Labels. What this means is that a single message can end up in multiple categories. Depending on your sense of organization, that can be a good thing or a nightmare.

Rather than explain Gmail’s IMAP implementation, let me refer you to a lengthy and clear-headed article from my friend Joe Kissell for all the particulars. Let me just say in passing that I am rather old fashioned in my way of handling email. I separate the messages from each domain, so I can better focus on the matters at hand, and I also use extra folders for organization. That may be retro to the developers of Gmail, but it’s the way I prefer to work, and that’s how the standard IMAP system was designed to function.

However, setting up an IMAP account on your Mac may not always be as simple process. First, you need to check to make sure that the mail server you’re using supports IMAP. From there, both Apple Mail and Microsoft Entourage will handle the basics of the account setup process, but it’s not seamless.

A troubling and sometimes downright frustrating feature in Mail, for example, is the way it maps your local email folders to the ones on the server. Different systems may call your Sent box, for example, Sent Items. Junk mail folders may be labeled, instead, as Spam or Bulk. Rather than sort this all out, and frankly I can’t see where it presents a serious programming issue, Apple expects you to do it all by yourself.

So when you set up an IMAP account, and it’s configured properly, there will be a separate listing for that account in Mail’s Mailboxes pane. When you expand the listing, you’ll see folders representing the additional mailboxes. To properly integrate them in Mail, you have to select each mailbox, in turn, choose Use This Mailbox For, in the Mailbox menu, and designate what purpose it serves. The choices are, in order, Drafts, Sent, Trash and Junk.

Now you shouldn’t have a problem picking the right one, except that some email systems don’t create all the extra folders until you attempt to use the account. So I suggest you keep several headache pills around in case you find yourself prepared to open the nearest window and scream appropriate epithets at the top of your lungs.

Now, that’s not why they created “primal scream therapy,” but it’s also true that Apple needs to use more intelligence to help people sort out these email organizational issues. It would also be nice if they made an effort to make sense of the way Gmail has established its IMAP system.

Maybe I’m expecting too much, but my favorite surprise feature wish list for Snow Leopard includes some desperately needed changes for Mail. But I don’t expect any of it to happen.

We know that the tech media can’t stop talking about netbooks, particularly the one missing from the market, and that’s a model with an Apple label on it. It’s also not certain yet, despite what the pundits say, if the netbook will actually survive beyond its short-term success.

What isn’t being understood here is that there are such things as fads. For whatever reason, a product, a service, or a person, seems to become a larger-than-life phenomenon. You think of the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame here. You can’t stop talking about something, and yet you simply move onto another fad the next day or the next week.

I would, for example, put Twitter into that category. Yes, I know some of you can’t wait to get to your Mac or PC in order to deliver a daily — or hourly — diet of 140 characters worth of pithy comments. We have our own Twitter presence too. But how long will it take for that practice to get old? Will millions of people who embraced the “tweet” as part of their daily routine wake up one morning and decide that, well, they have other things to do and maybe they’ll post later. After a few days of this, they go on to another craze.

Sure, the netbook has its attractions. They are small and cute and — above all — cheap. If you can’t afford a full-featured note-book computer, getting one of these things for $300 or so might make sense, particularly if it performs all or most of the functions you expect from a standard note-book.

Apple’s response to the concept has so far been that the iPhone and iPod touch perform basic netbook functions, such as email and the Web. They have maintained that the existing PC netbooks all provide poor customer experiences, from crowded keyboards to subpar performance.

Now I can see the logic behind the former. Yes, I’m accustomed to typing on the iPhone’s virtual keyboard, but if I want to go beyond a sentence or two, I require the physical, full-sized version, such as the one on my MacBook Pro. Squeezing everything together a little too much can present a bit of an obstacle, though I suppose you’d eventually get used to it. As to performance, well it’s true that some folks have already hacked Mac OS X to install on one of those things, and they say performance is decent enough for basic computing tasks, so I don’t know.

Perhaps Apple is just using a little spin control until they can get their corporate heads around a viable strategy, or maybe they are just hoping that netbooks will simply become another failed PC strategy, such as the media center, after the economy improves and people can buy the real things once again without suffering pain in the wallet.

Then again, Apple may be engaging in one of their classic efforts at misdirection. While you look at one possibility for a new Apple product, they are doing something else. However, I suspect most of the concepts are already out there, although it may take a combination of some of them to arrive at what may now be in the final prototype stages in Apple’s top secret test labs.

With the introduction of the grown-up Amazon Kindle DX, you have to wonder if you are seeing a vision that takes you closer to Apple’s solution.

Basically the Kindle, with all its attractions for books and, with the DX, for textbooks and perhaps newspapers, is still the one trick pony. Images may be wonderful, but they are still somewhat slow to generate and are limited to black and white.

You probably already know that there is a Kindle application for the iPhone, which you can use to purchase and download the very same content. That’s where Amazon makes the lion’s share of its profits from the Kindle venture anyway, since they are not traditionally a hardware maker. I suspect they envision the Kindle in the same fashion as a printer maker considers its pricing strategy. They are designed to generate income after the sale; books for the former and consumables for the latter.

Apple, on the other hand, works in the reverse. Content, such as software, music and movies, are designed to move more hardware. If you buy an iPod and don’t download music from iTunes, fine and dandy. Apple still made a sale.

So consider the possibilities of a tablet computer similar in size to the Kindle. Only it displays full color, and is powerful enough to deliver the same breadth of features as the iPhone, only with a larger screen and perhaps with even speedier processing. Buttons and switches and what-not are minimal. You do most everything, as with the iPhone and iPod touch, via a virtual keyboard. Kindle software is there for the same content that Amazon offers, and with a larger screen you get the benefits of the DX, plus the ability to read magazines, newspapers and text books in full color.

If you want, you would be able to connect a regular set of wireless input devices, and perhaps prop up your Apple tablet with a stand from a third-party for more sustained computing chores. So Apple might take the netbook concept way beyond what PC makers, with their limited visions, can muster.

I might even find myself buying one of those things, and that would be progress, at least for me.

It’s fair to say that there’s not a whole lot of news is coming out of Cupertino, CA these days from Apple. There weren’t any new product introductions in April, and there may be another vast wasteland between now and the WWDC in June. That’s where most of you no doubt expect a firm release date for Snow Leopard and the next iPhone.

Sure, there may be some software updates, such as the recent firmware fix to address freezing and other issues involving iMacs equipped with the Radeon HD 4850 graphics processor. There are even suggestions that Apple is readying a 10.5.7 update, but don’t expect anything official until it happens — if it happens.

Without much solid information to go on, beyond Microsoft beginning its planned layoff of 5,000 employees of course, rumors and speculation are front and center. Certainly some of the rumors make a lot of sense, but a few more don’t survive the logic test.

Take Twitter — please! Seriously, it’s a fun place if you can get into the rhythm of writing regular 140 character blogs or diary entries about yourself and post them for the edification of anyone who decides to follow you. We use it, actually, but avoid some of the more tasteless topics, such as recent bathroom or dental visits.

Now there’s a story that suggests Apple is in heavy negotiations to acquire the fast-growing socializing network, founded in 2006, for $700 million. This comes after other rumors suggested that Google was also after Twitter. If Apple inks such a deal, the transaction would be made official around the time of the WWDC.

However, it’s fair to say that, despite the massive hype, Twitter has not yet been shown to be a profit-making company. They are still paying for their server farms out of venture capital. True, there are tens of millions of users, including notables from the world of politics and show business. Indeed, it has become the place to be — but how are they going to monetize this service?

Sure, Apple has plenty of spare cash, so buying up Twitter would, to them, be a drop in the bucket. The larger question is how it would be integrated into their existing products and services and whether it could yield some positive cash flow for the company and its shareholders. If that’s not possible, buying a company like Twitter wouldn’t make one bit of sense.

I’m not saying it won’t or can’t happen. Stranger things have occurred, but a social network would seem a better fit for Google, Yahoo! or even Face-book. Am I wrong? More to the point, it would seem to me that Twitter would work best as a value-added service to an existing social network, one that would enhance the overall value. That way the core Twitter service doesn’t have to deliver financial benefits of itself, but integrating it with other services might bring more visitors and hence encourage advertisers to pay higher fees.

So Apple and Twitter doesn’t pass the smell test, at least to me. Maybe it will happen, or maybe Apple is just talking about some sort of loose partnership rather than an outright purchase. We’ll see.

The other rumor afoot now is that Apple is poised to address flat sales of new Macs by cutting prices. Yes, I can see this as a possibility, assuming Apple is willing to sacrifice short-term profits in the hope that volume will make up for the difference. But I’m skeptical about the long-term strategy, since restoring prices to their former levels might end up hurting future sales. Remember, this is a company that doesn’t look at its business strictly on the basis of one or two quarters.

A sensible possibility might just involve making available a 17-inch version of the iMac for the consumer market. Since the low-end 20-inch model costs $1,199, you’d think that Apple could offer the smaller edition for $200 or $300 less. That would put it into closer contention with mainstream PC hardware.

Some are suggesting that Apple ought to make a bigger push to move the iMac, maybe even find a way to reduce the price some without hurting the standard equipment. Again, this is a questionable move, because it goes against the grain for a company that won’t sacrifice short-term profits in the hope of moving more product.

Remember, also, that we’ll probably soon see those standard back-to-school specials for students, where they can get a free iPod along with a new Mac. That can certainly boost sales, particularly if the economy stabilizes over the coming months. It wouldn’t involve anything unique, since that simply reflects an ongoing marketing strategy.

Yes, I’d like to see cheaper Apple hardware, but as they say themselves when confronted with cheap PCs, what’s the good of paying less for a computer if it doesn’t do what you want? Apple can certainly remove standard features from their products, but that goes against their DNA. Moreover, whether or not it has iLife on it is irrelevant from a cost standpoint, since that simply involves a disk image used in manufacturing, and iLife represents a significant usability advantage for a Mac.

Sure, you never know what Apple really plans to do, but if you’re going to speculate, it’s always best to try to do so with a least a modest grip on reality.