Sound Off: Mac vs. PC; YOU Tell ME

Yeah, we've all seen the cute commercials with the laid back comedian and the uptight comedian bantering about how much better a Mac is than a PC.  I've been contemplating this issue literally for years, and in doing some of my homework, I have some legitimate beefs with switching that I either don't hear about from other switchers, or that don't seem to come up with other people.  So, being that I well could be the odd man out again (as is so often the case), I present to you a few issues that spring to mind in the Mac vs. PC decision.

1. First of all, a Mac is friggin' expensive.  Don't gimme a line o' crap about "What's cheaper, replacing your PC every two years and protecting it from Malware, Spyware, viruses and hackers, or buying a Mac?" either.  That's not gonna fly.  Initial outlay of capital is initial outlay of capital.  The cost of ownership isn't even a factor in this argument yet, so let's leave it alone.  Right now, the Mac costs a lot more than a PC, period.  I'd love to make the switch, really I would, but -- day-um, y'all, those prices are exorbitant.  Yes, you can get them on eBay and refurbished for less, but those still run more than an off-the-shelf PC.
   
2. Lack of standardization between the two OSs for users.  I mean to tell ya, you have zero similarity between Macs and PCs functionally.  I'm not arguing one's better than the other here; you can do that if you want, but the fact of the matter is the number of PCs in the world far, far outweigh the number of Macs in the world.  Common shortcuts are different, the naming and location of commands is different, the interfaces are different (like menus and even the three buttons at the top of the screen for applications) , the input devices -- yes, keyboards and mice -- are different.  Hell, there's not one thing except the alpha-numeric keys they seem to share in common.
   
   That's not easy to get over one way or the other.  Give the advantage to Mac users here, because they most likely have to use a PC in their workplace, so they know both.  I had one user I supported years ago tell me, "I use a PC because I have to; I use a Mac because I want to."  Have to or want to, he had the best of both worlds.  He used a PC at work (the "have to" part) and a Mac at home (the "want to").  He knew a fair amount about how to get around in both worlds.  I think this will be true for most Mac users, since most commercial places of employment aren't willing to spend the extra money on Macs to fill their cubicles.  I've never been a Mac user; PC only am I.  Therefore, I have a steep learning curve ahead of me with a Mac, and I wonder what my frustration level and stress level will be in doing that. 
   
   I'm a writer too (just ask me), so I spend a lot of time working my keyboard shortcuts and avoiding my mouse when I can.  I like my keyboard layout; I'm familiar with it and know where to find almost everything without looking.  What about a Mac?  How much trouble amd I going to have with a Mac?  I've also heard that the shortcuts aren't always consistent from one software package to another.  Any truth to that?
   
   Any recent switchers from PC to Mac, please sound off here, because I'm legitimately interested.
   
3. Shortage of USB ports.  I've read a couple of articles where users have complained that their Mac desktops only have 3 USB ports, and most Mac notebooks only have two.  Are you frickin' kidding me??  What the hell are you thinking over their, Jobs??  Get a clue!  Beef 'em up!  You're asking people to pay an arm and a leg and depending on what model they're getting a right lung too for a computer.  Put the things they need on it, jackass!!  Most PCs are coming with 4 ports on the back and at least 2 more on the front.  What's Apple's problem?  The iPhone cost them so much they can't afford USB ports on their computers?  Gimme a break.
   
4. Shortage of software.  Okay, you want to talk about the overall cost of ownership with a Mac vs. a PC?  Take a look in this category.  There's a fair amount of premium to be paid off the shelf for Mac software, and there's not a lot of it.  I go to any computer specialty retailer and I can find hundreds of titles for PC.  I go to the Mac ghetto section of the same store, and I see a couple dozen titles.  And that's only the beginning.
   
   I personally have ... obtained, let's say, thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software.  I have it, I can install it and use it on any PC I buy running Microsoft Windows (so long as it's an appropriate compatible version of the OS, which would be true for any computing platform).  But, if I switch to a Mac, all those CDs and DVDs become coasters only suitable for protecting my table top from the condensation from my Long Island Iced Tea.  I can't use it anymore, unless I'm willing to work with some sort of emulator like VMWare (EXPENSIVE) or WINE (which claims it's NOT an emulator, but also doesn't have a 100% success rate with Windows software and doesn't have the same performance capability as Windows software running natively in Windows).  To get back all the capacity I currently have, I'd have to spend thousands of dollars to replace that software, some of which are high-cost suites.  Now, total cost of ownership?  You tell me.  I don't know about the "average" user, but for me, it's no contest.  Period.  (Incidentally, this is the primary reason if not the only one preventing me from switching to Linux, too.)
   
5. Viruses and Spyware.  Mac users claim Macs are virus-proof and don't need antivirus software, but my beautiful and highly-intelligent wife read just scant months ago how a new spate of malicious code was being scripted lovingly just for the *nix crowd of OSs, including Macs.  I don't know how popular or widespread those infections are now, but give it time.  There will be no advantage to having a Mac in the security area before very long, because evil people are evil, and when Microsoft no longer presents a challenge to their abilities, they will seek others.  Mac is foremost among those challenges.  Unix-based OSs are next.  What's the advantage here, then?  I still need to get AV software, and with PCs it's readily available, even for free in some cases.
   
6. And while we're discussing cost of ownership and free, what about freeware?  I have a good supply of programs I use, which are Windows-based, and is freeware.  I can download it from their site or others and run it without any problem.  Get a Mac, and I lose free programs.  I don't have a Mac, so I've never done a search for Mac-oriented freeware, but if the difference in commercial software availability is any indication, it will be no contest.  Again, this is a hesitation point for me in switching.  What does Mac offer that is the equivalent or at least comparable to the things I'm using on my PC?  How do I find out?  I mean, besides Google.  ;)
   
7. Maintenance and repair.  I'm fully capable of diagnosing and repairing any problem I have with my PC.  I haven't had a problem yet that I couldn't find and fix.  After 12 years of technical support experience, I'd better be able to say that.  But with a Mac, despite the introduction of Intel chips, the guts of the machine are different.  How hard is it to figure out?  This is yet another learning curve; how steep of one?  Anyone who knows, sound off.  I'm sincerely interested.
   
8. Cost of hardware.  My last exposure to Mac hardware was many, many years ago.  There was absolutely no comparison in pricing.  As cost of parts plummeted for PCs, Mac hardware was both difficult to find (without going directly to Apple somehow) or difficult to afford.  The premium on their proprietary innards was so ridiculously high it just wasn't worth it.  I personally know of at least one person that gave up on Macs when his broke and he couldn't afford the replacement part.  He switched to a PC and hasn't gone back.  At least, not that I know of.  Is this still true?  Does Apple continue to shoot itself in the market foot by pricing itself out of competitive play?
   
9. I've heard a lot of good things about Macs, but their networking capabilities aren't among them.  I don't guess there's a definitive answer for this; my only experience with networking a Mac was pretty painless, but it only involved setting up a printer on a TCP/IP network so the Mac user could print while he was in the office.  What's the story with AirPort?  Is it reliable?  Do Macs come with built-in wireless cards like PCs, or do you need to add a third party one?  And if they are added, do the driver disks that come with the devices work with Mac?  Most of them will have a few generations of Windows drivers on the CDs (Win95/98, W2K, XP, maybe Vista now).  Does Mac use those drivers, or is it something completely different?  And if they don't use the standard drivers, where do you get the drivers?  If you can't get online, you can't very well download them, now can you?

Well, those are a few of the off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts regarding switching to a Mac.  Some of these are common to my concerns about switching to a Unix-based OS, too, but at least those don't run on proprietary hardware platforms.

What have you got for me, Mac world?  Answers?  I truly want to know.  I'm not planning on making this switch soon, and I can tell you that it's a shame if I'm told I have to attend some stupid workshop taught by an "Apple Genius" at an Apple store to make this happen, but if that's the truth, I want to know.  Sound off, tell me how it is.  Don't tell me how great Macs are and once I go Mac I'll never go back (for the money I'll shell out to "go Mac" I damn well better not have to go back!).  I can get that kind of "Rah-Rah" anywhere Macs are sold or used.  I want the guts, the internals, the workings of switching from a PC to a Mac.  I'm especially interested in hearing from any of you that only recently switched.

So ... whattaya got for me?

-JDT-

Technorati Tags: computers,hardware,random thoughts,software,writing

Seeing the World in a New Way

The more I think about it – which isn’t much, by the way – the more I want a multiple monitor set-up for my computer.

I don’t do a lot of work at home. In fact, I do as little work from home as I possibly can. I have a supremely uncomfortable computer chair, and that’s a lot of the problem. I have a lame computer desk – it’s basically a flat table with 4 legs, and that’s it – and that doesn’t help matters. But I like the computer – so far, it’s been (mostly) trouble-free and does the things I want it to do when I want it to do them.

How do you define “work,” though? For me, work is what I do for a living; the things that I do to earn my wages. Long ago, I was a computer technician. I made my living, earned my wages and paid my bills, by fixing computer hardware- and software-related issues. I don’t do that anymore, and I haven’t for a couple of years, and that’s fine with me. When I came home from work, the last thing I wanted to do was computer repair work (just ask my poor wife, who couldn’t get me to do anything for her computer without a fight). Now that I don’t do that anymore, I still hate doing computer repair work, but I’m a bit more willing to roll up my sleeves and make it happen than I was a couple of years ago.

Right now, I’m not sure exactly what I’m doing for my living, but I’m certain I can’t do it at home, so that’s really a non-issue. So, what’s “doing work at home” mean to me now?

Again, I’m not sure, but based on the things I like to do with my computer at home, I suppose that it means doing the things I like to do with my computer. That’s doing “work” at home in this context. With that definition cleared up, here are some of the reasons that I have for wanting a multiple-monitor set-up for my workstation. These are as much justification tests for myself as they are reasons to convince my loving and not especially resistant spouse for the need; she may see some things here that apply to her too, and since she spends a lot more time on the computer at home than I do, she’s probably more deserving of the set-up than I am. So, before I digress even more from the topic, here are some of the things I do with my computer at home:

1. Programming. I spend as much time programming and learning programming at home as I can, which means not very much at all. One of the great things about a multiple-monitor set-up is that it enables coding and debugging to take place side-by-side with the execution of the program. Very handy, and a huge increase in productivity (this has been confirmed in multiple studies wherein people not only increased their productivity with multiple monitors, but they preferred two smaller monitors over one huge one every time, with no exceptions). Since I’m a novice programmer and make a lot of mistakes, not having to toggle between the coding window and program execution for testing and debugging would be a boon.


2. Gaming. Okay, I do less gaming than programming, so you have an idea of what that’s like there. But it would be nice not to have the game I’m playing commandeer the resolution setting of my computer so that the CPU fights to get back to the original settings when I switch back to my normal desktop. This way, the game can have one controller all to itself, and the PC can run the normal desktop on another, and that will fix the problem of toggling in and out of the game along with the delay in restoration of the desktop. For my beloved, she loves to play The Sims; it’s a graphic-intensive game, if you’ve been under a rock for the last decade and haven’t seen it yet. It’s her favorite pass-time and she’s constantly having to save, pause and ALT-TAB her way out of it do use the computer for anything else, so she only wants to launch the game when it’s going to be uninterrupted time for her to play. With two kids and a demanding husband (who is working on being less so), that’s really unlikely. Since she’s everything from my accountant to my research assistant, she’s switching in and out of the game a lot while playing. Multiple monitors would enable her not to have to do that, and with multiple video controllers, again, the game gets a dedicated controller so the machine won’t have to fight with resolution adjustments.


3. Email. Yes, I check email, and I’d like to have my email open along with having my search engine of choice open and maybe my favorite team’s homepage too. I’d like to have eBay and Amazon both up simultaneously. While I can do that to some degree now, particularly with tabbed browsing-enabled browsers like Mozilla Firefox or IE 7, it’s more convenient still to have separate windows open under certain circumstances, and not have to toggle amongst them to view. With only 19” worth of real estate on our monitors, cascading or tiling windows only goes so far. The solution? Multiple monitors, of course! Again, my beloved would put me to shame on this one; she can have Outlook express checking all her email accounts open while also having her web-based email accounts which won’t download to OE open too, and never have to toggle. Toggling is annoying.


4. Writing. I like to have the option of opening many different documents to peruse them, copy and paste from them, and have an Internet page or two open at the same time. This is a lot, and I mean a LOT, easier in a multiple-monitor situation. I can also have a spreadsheet or two open, along with the coding window behind that spreadsheet showing my VBA macros code. That’s kind of like programming, though, so I won’t beat that dead horse. I like to journal, too, and this way, I can have the journal open all the time with other applications running and never have issues with the two of them crashing into each other. In this, I have my sweetie beat. I journal, I blog (duh), and sometimes I even write fiction.


5. Drawing/graphics. It would be nice to have a web tutorial on Photoshop drawing available without it hiding behind Photoshop so that I can walk through the tutorial and actually DO the steps I’m reading about without having to switch back and forth between the two programs. Again, tiling the windows or cascading them only goes so far with limited visual real estate, and I feel that for making artwork on the computer, a multiple-monitor situation solves all the problems that come with it … and the ones that come from learning it. I’m the only one in the house that draws on the computer, so my lovely has nothing to relate to here.


6. Instant Messaging. It would be nice to communicate with friends and acquaintances without having to shut down this or get out of that to do so. Multiple monitors would enable having IM programs out of the way without being invisible, or being left closed because they annoy me while I’m trying to work.

I can probably think of more, if I spend enough time doing so, but that’s really the bulk of it for me. My wife can add her own reasons to the list, but before she does, she’ll have to rethink her computer desk. She bought one that isn’t really conducive to multiple monitors and until recently didn’t understand why I don’t want one that’s anything like hers. For me, I’d probably have to design and build my own. I can’t think of another way to get all the features I want in a practical design. Out-of-the-box or off-the-shelf desks just don’t seem to work for what I want.

Anyway, so what do I need to accomplish what I want?

As far as I can find, there are at least two different ways I can do what I want to do. For me, the best situation is probably going to be a mid-level graphics card, say in the 256MB or 512MB range, which will support two more monitors. The first, my on-board graphics chipset, may work with the triple-monitor situation, but if not, at least dual monitors will be possible. One additional controller will enable me to add another VGA monitor, which means I’ll likely have the option of deciding which controller I want to be my primary controller. This way, if games are an issue when they launch (and they choose their own monitor upon which to launch), I can set the higher-performance card to be the primary and the on-board to be the secondary. Once I’ve established where the applications open, they will always open there. Since I don’t need wicked-speed graphics for doing spreadsheet or database programming, it’s no big deal for me to have them open on the lower-end integrated controller. And, the two screens can have different resolutions then (I think), so that the game’s alteration of the screen resolution on one controller won’t mess up the graphics on the other one.

The second situation involves getting a lower-end PCI card along with the higher-end PCIe card. Since my computer doesn’t support AGP interfaces, I have only PCI and PCIe to work with, and there’s only ONE PCIe slot available. So, that’s where the higher-end card will go. The lower-end, PCI card, will occupy one of the open PCI slots and permit me to run standard, non-graphics intensive items on it … and on the integrated controller. Are you counting? That’s up to 4 monitors being supported now. Since Windows XP Pro and Home both support up to 10 monitors on a single computer, why the heck not?? I’m only limited, at this point, by money.

Now, there is another way. The second way is to buy a device called “TripleHead2Go” from Matrox. It’s a hand-sized device that allows you to plug in up to four monitors, and will enable you to have a single desktop that spans over the entire array. I think, if I recall correctly, the device will also allow you to have individual programs, like games, running on only one of the monitors, too. That way, you don’t have a game character working on the border between 2 monitors, which would be really distracting. I’d have to re-read their webpage to be sure, though. At any rate, this bugger is only about $180USD, or less, and is portable, since it’s so small. The only difference I see in the two methodologies is price. As far as I can tell, they may be equally versatile.

If you’re going to have multiple monitors, however, you want them to be as intuitive and easy to use as possible. With multiple controllers, you’re going to need a program to make moving among them as simple and easy as possible, so that dragging everything around doesn’t become as tedious as toggling back and forth in a single-monitor set-up. For that, it would be nice to have a task bar at the bottom of EACH screen, rather than just one. And to accomplish that, you can use “Ultramon.” It’s a nifty little program for about $40USD that does just what I’ve described, and a whole lot more, including enabling a different screen saver on each monitor, and if I understood correctly, a different background/wallpaper on each one, too. I’d have to check that, though. Or you can; just Google for “Ultramon.” It’s a very, very cool program.

As for the things I want in the graphics controller(s) of choice, well, there’s a lot to consider. One of the first things I’ll have to do is beef up the RAM in my computer from 1GB to 2GB (the maximum), just to make sure I’ve got plenty available. 4GB would be better, but I think the maximum allowed on this model is 2GB. (My wife, when she reads this, will look it up and correct me if I'm wrong, so I'm not going to bother doing that now.) Anyway, that’s probably all I can afford right now … remember, what I do to my computer I must, out of guilt, also do to my wife’s computer.

The card itself should be no less than 256MB, and preferably 512MB or greater. The on-board controller is 256MB, and I want something superior to that; I also do NOT want the card sharing memory (RAM) to assist it. I want that bad boy to be a fully-stand-alone GPU, and I want all the memory my computer has available to the computer, and not being leeched for video support. There’s no point in stepping up the graphics capability if I’m going to degrade the PC’s performance at the same time. That just doesn’t make sense.

I should also consider carefully the manufacturer. Since there could be a problem with compatibility between my on-board controller and anything else I stick in it, I should look into needing to stay with the same manufacturer, and how that might interfere with the features I want from the card. I’ll cross that minefield when I get to it, though.

The card should also have dual-monitor support. There’s no point in not having multiple-monitor support on each and every card I put in; you never know. Maybe I’ll end up like one of those computer geeks on TV, sitting in a darkened room illuminated only by the soft glow of my LCDs, drawn and reclusive. Okay, more drawn and reclusive. On the surface, this doesn’t sound so hard, but I have to be very careful how I do this in selecting the card. For one, some of them come with a TV tuner, and I can’t use that in my system for some reason. Rather than risk the card not working at all because of that, I’d rather have one that doesn’t include a tuner. I don’t drive my entertainment system with the PC either, so I don’t need an S-Video connector. And since my on-board controller might have a problem with playing nice with other VGA controllers, maybe going with just DVI outputs would be best. After all, I don’t think I’m ever going back to CRTs again, so DVI connections to additional LCDs work just fine.

As for cost, I think I can keep the cost down on this gig by using 19” LCDs. For one, the price on those has come down dramatically from what they were even a year or two ago. I’ve seen some really great prices on monitors that have fairly good specs. Only the most hard-core gamers might have an issue with the “ghosting” and after-image matters; for me, that typically doesn’t present a problem on email and spreadsheets. I’ve never seen Word burn a hole in a monitor’s performance either. So I’m good. Since they’re so much cheaper than they used to be, I can afford to stock up and have a few lying around.

Okay, not really, but I can probably swing a couple of them. Remember, what I do to my computer I must, out of guilt, also do to my wife’s computer.

For her, I think two monitors will suffice, but I bet if I can talk her into three, she’d never go back. For me, the goal is three for now, and I’ll be bucking hard for four of them before too long. By then, though, I’ll already have the bulk of the setup ready for additional screens. All I’ll need to do is add screens.

I’ll keep you all posted.

-JDT-

Patching the Holes

Okay, so I have a penchant for messing things up, and being a bit ham-handed at some things. Fortunately for me, I have a God who is great and sorts things out, making the most of even the things that I screw up royale.

That being said, I’ve made some decisions lately that I thought, after “careful consideration,” were good decisions. Mostly in the area of my career, if you can call it that. I’ve blogged before that I had what I considered an embarrassment of riches before after messing up my last assignment: three jobs were in the offering, and all I had to do was to sit down, examine them all, and make a decision. Easy, right?

Wrong. For one thing, I wasn’t really sure what any of the jobs being offered were going to provide in the way of career enhancement. Two of the three weren’t long-term, and the third was never assured. (As it turned out, they hired someone else, so it’s lucky for me I didn’t place all of my eggs in that basket.) While the long-term deal I wanted so badly didn’t come through, I had two offers that were viable, there-for-the-asking jobs and all I had to do was pick one.

Looking at both of them, I decided that, in the interest of future marketing, taking less money and a longer drive over higher wages and something that was infinitely better suited to me was probably a good choice. Now, I didn’t say that I was accustomed to making these kinds of choices; I’m kind of a rookie at it, actually, and usually end up taking whatever I can get. While that certainly isn’t an excuse for being stupid, it allows you to see that with two (and at that time, potentially three) roads to choose from, it’s easy for me to make a bad decision.

Okay, it’s not easy; it’s easier than it is for someone with experience in having to choose the best of two or three good things. Offer me a filet mignon, a prime rib eye, and a tender, juicy strip steak and the choice is akin to what I was facing here. Is that going to be chocolate ice cream, or rocky road? Ah, the choices! Decisions, decisions!

Now, this wouldn’t be a problem for most anyone else. I mean, c’mon; you’ve got one offer that pays more, is closer to home, is something easy to do and very undemanding (depending, of course, on the manager for whom you’re working), and wouldn’t look all that bad on your resume. The only problem is, it’s fixed at eight weeks. The other job is a lot farther from home, much more mentally draining (and some people like that sort of thing), and is a lot more high pressure, not to mention it pays less. But, it was doing something that (I thought) would be very titillating on the ol’ CV. So, weighing the options, talking it (to death) over with my wife, and trying to do the right thing for the long(er)-term, I chose the lower pay, longer commute job.

Like I said, I have a penchant for screwing up.

Yes, it was the wrong choice. I know how much I hate technical support, how sick of it I am, how demanding and exacting it can be. I know how stressful I find it, I know how tortured I am over it, how I lose interest in it (quickly), and how turning what was once a hobby for me into work ended up being a disastrous and tormenting decision (there’s that word again) that I made all those years ago. Nearly a quarter of my life has been spent working in a field I don’t like anymore. If I had just stayed the course, I’d be a programmer now, with about ten years experience and probably making a whole bunch more money than I am now. Of course, on the other side of that same coin, if I’d stayed the course, I’d probably be a physician now, and making a lot more money – and difference in the lives of people – than I am now.

As it turns out, I hate the job I’m doing. It’s not because I don’t like the place I work – I do, the people are really nice there. It’s not because I don’t like the manager I work for – he’s a good guy, and not that hard to work for at all. I feel a bit guilty, in fact, that I’m not farther along with his requests than I am. It’s just that I didn’t get a real sense for what I was doing until it was much, much too late. It’s basically hardware troubleshooting all over again; and I’m at a different level now than I’ve been before, because the “root causes” of the problems need to be determined. That means I spend a lot of time recognizing that I didn’t ever really get very deep into troubleshooting before, and that I’m probably not as good at this sort of thing as I should be after 10 years of doing it. I’m not anymore than a problem-solver; I figure out what’s wrong and fix it. I don’t care why it’s wrong, I just fix it. That’s not very good technician mentality; very good technicians want to determine why something’s wrong so that they can fix it, prevent it from happening again, and document the problem so that other techs can fix it too.

I’m basically lazy; while my colleagues were at home, studying hardware forums and exchanging ideas with other technicians, playing with new configurations and settings to determine what they’re for and what they impact, and setting up home networks and servers to broaden their scope of knowledge, I was getting laid, working on a novel, practicing my marksmanship on the firing range, and later trying to raise a family and scheming to make more money somehow. (That’s an incredible run-on sentence, and Word didn’t catch it.) None of that paid off, but in consolation, what they did probably didn’t get much benefit from their efforts, either. They’re most likely steadily employed, though.

In short, I’m not a geek. I’m just not; I was good at finding the problem and fixing it. And I wasn’t too bad at remembering that problem when I saw it again at some future point (depending on how much time had gone by). I wasn’t too afraid of dorking around with something to see if the settings could be made to work, and I was good at passing my knowledge on to other techs. But I wasn’t a geek; I didn’t live and breathe computer science and hardware. I didn’t really … well, care about that stuff too much. And as I’ve said in previous posts (you’ll have to read them all to see), being a tech really means you need to care about that sort of thing and work to stay atop it. Like my colleagues did.

So I hate doing what I’m doing, and I think it shows. I’m always allowing myself to get distracted with other things, most of which aren’t work-related, while I’m supposed to be working on figuring out problem root causes and documenting procedures, working to figure out how to break a software installation (yes, that’s right – BREAK it, after spending my entire career trying to figure out ways to FIX them) so that as many possible paths of eventuality can be mapped as possible for when that software is rolled out next year. I go into work every day, and try to convince myself that it’s okay; it’s really possible to do that, even though it sounds like an exercise in futility. Even though the combination of things that can go wrong is so impossibly huge that not even the creators of the operating system can give you every eventuality. Even though this isn’t my favorite thing to do and I’m overall pretty crappy at it. It’s all right, I tell myself, this is what you chose and what you do until something else comes along, hopefully soon.

The year is waning; the days are short, the nights are long, and the job offers are drying up and companies are starting to sit tight until next year. There is nothing on my radar. I’m going to spend time out of work again, in all probability, at the end of this year and the first part of next, unless by some miracle this job is extended.

As I fought my despair and tried to make myself feel like the decision wasn’t so bad, a man named Paul called me. I’ve mentioned this in other posts. He had a job offer. Something interesting. Something I would like to do. Something that pays more – a lot more. And something that will benefit my resume over the long haul. And, best of all, it’s a year-long contract, barring doing something incredibly stupid. You know … like I did on my last assignment.

Friday, things moved forward. I had a phone interview. I found out, in the course of that interview, that the decision would be made on the strength of that phone interview. I was on the phone for 35 minutes, and told that a decision would be made fairly quickly. Monday or Tuesday, in fact. Very encouraging, and very exciting.

When I heard nothing today, and knowing that the interviewer was speaking to another candidate on Friday, I assumed the worst. I always seem to lose out when the interview seems to go well, so why not assume that? It’s happened to me a couple of times already over the last few months.

At about 1:15 p.m., my contact Paul called me back. In his very English accent, he told me that he had good news.

You see, even though I have a penchant for screwing things up, I have a very great God who can make even my worst decisions work out somehow.

Thanks, Lord. I really, really appreciate what You’ve done here today.

-JDT-