SoloBlawg

PC vs. Mac: Let's talk about functionality

2007-02-27T23:29:45-05:00

My friend Grant Griffiths has now responded to my opening salvo in our PC vs. Mac online debate. So let's see where we stand:

I stated that functionality would be the "core value" of my argument.
Grant has failed to come forward with any other "core value" for discussion.
Hence, this is now a debate about functionality.

That's major progress, folks, because it means this will not be a debate about how cool our respective systems are. Oh, I could have talked about all of the cool peripherals that I have been able to choose for my PC platform, compared to the much more limited after-market of peripherals for Macs. But Grant has acquiesced in a debate about functionality instead. So let's talk about functionality.

Predictably, Grant has opened with what he perceives to be his trump card: the specter of the "blue screen of death." It must have seemed like the right card to play, since no one can deny that a computer is rendered completely non-functional if and when it locks up. But here's the question that begs to be asked:

If the blue screen of death were as prevalent as Mac users would have the rest of the world believe, why has the rest of the world (or at least the vast majority of the business world) chosen to stick with the PC platform year after year after year?

I suppose Grant and his Groupies would answer, "the tyranny of Microsoft, that's why!" But that argument ignores the fact that the business world has been quick to abandon a product that just doesn't do the job. If system lockups (a/k/a "the blue screen of death") were as much of a problem as Grant would have us believe, the PC platform would be little more than a funny story in the annals of desktop computing.

Over the past 25 years I've worked in law firms, a corporate law department and a state bar association, all of which used PC systems. I can't remember when any of those systems locked up.

Even as a solo practitioner, I can count on one hand the number of system lockups I have encountered with my PC platform over the course of a year. Usually they occurred when I was pushing the limits of my system in one way or another, not when I was using my computer to get work done. That makes me wonder if the main reason many Mac converts have bad memories about system lockups is quite simply that they were trying to make low-end PCs do too much.

I've always bought PCs that are up to the task of business computing. I don't think it makes sense to practice law with a "home computer" any more than it makes sense to work in my pajamas even when I'm working alone all day in my home office. But I suspect that other lawyers, especially solo and small firm lawyers, have had problems with their PCs because they have failed to understand that a "home computer" is not designed to serve as a serious business tool.

Apple's marketing strategy has always been somewhat analogous to that of some upscale cars. Yes, you will pay more, but in return you will have the confidence of knowing that you bought a machine equipped to do the job. Macs are generally pricier than many PC systems, but they also come loaded with plenty of memory. And the Mac OS has never pretended to be an open architecture. That has meant a more limited array of software, but also an array of software that has been road-tested for stable performance.

But there's really no point in dwelling on the issue of system lockups, and here's why: If you, the reader of this post, have already concluded (from your own experience, from what you have read, or from the incessant cant of Mac Maniacs) that the "blue screen of death" is a serious problem with a PC platform, then there is simply no reason for you to follow this debate any further. On the other hand, if you have concluded (like the vast majority of business people) that the problem has been exaggerated by Mac Maniacs, you probably want to hear more about the relative functionality of PCs vs. Macs as hardware platforms for solo and small firm practice.

And that, my friend Grant, brings me to the second step of my argument. The second step is simply this:

A hardware platform is simply a platform. The functionality of a system is mostly a matter of software -- the stuff that sits on the platform.

In other words, if we're going to talk about functionality (see above), we've got to talk about software. And that means, of course, that if we're going to talk about business computing, we've gotta talk about business software.

I realize, of course, that Grant is already salivating at the idea of saying, "but I can run all PC software on my Mac!" But anyone who hears that argument (and is not already wedded to one operating system or another) is surely tempted to ask, "If the best business software is PC software, why not run it on a PC?" Grant likes to say "Ben, Ben, Ben..." but his argument about software is best characterized as "but, but, but..."

So, Grant, if you're really prepared to defend the Mac platform as a business platform, I suggest that you make a good faith effort to show that a solo or small firm practitioner can assemble the same set of practice tools from Mac software that he or she can assemble from PC software.

In another recent post, I listed some of the software that I have found to be most useful in my tech-leveraged solo practice. I will be discussing each of those programs and packages in the weeks ahead. Some of them are available in Mac versions -- some of them. Other lawyers would nominate other programs. But one thing is certain: none of us have ever had any trouble finding a "PC" version of leading business software.

Can you say the same about Mac software, Grant? I don't think so. Every time I glance at a Mac Maniac blog or website, I notice one or more posts that breathlessly report the fact that some highly-regarded program is now (at last) available for Mac users (either as a Mac version of the original PC program, or as a Mac-based knock-off of a PC program). That tells me something. It tells me that Mac users privately wish that there were as many software developers writing for the Mac as there are writing for the PC. But that simply ain't the case.

So let's talk about functionality, Grant. In other words, let's talk about software.

PC vs. Mac: Let's get started

2007-02-19T18:56:47-05:00

This is "Post #1" on my side of the PC vs. Mac (a/k/a Ben vs. Grant) online debate between myself and my friend Grant Griffiths of Home Office Lawyer (who literally carries a banner for Mac-based lawyering, along with his kindred spirit Ben Stevens.)

First, let me acknowledge the comments I have already received from Bald Ben and other members of Grant's Groupies. It's obvious from their comments (as if it weren't obvious already) that Mac users like to talk a lot about their cool computers, while PC users just get on with the work at hand (yes, Grant, that's intended as a friendly dig).

In fact, I just Googled the phrase "PC vs. Mac for lawyers" (hoping to find some helpful expert opinion to build my case upon), and was not surprised (but no less disappointed) to find that the top 20 search results included about 15 blogs and websites that are unabashedly Mac Maniacs (including, of course, Gregarious Grant and Bald Ben).

Grant himself has already predicted that this debate will cause me to become a Mac user, although he hasn't offered to buy me a Mac computer or a whole new array of Mac-compatible peripherals. Perhaps he and and I will merely persuade each other to become "bi," as Adriana Linares revealed (quite appropriately) in a Valentine's Day post on I Heart Tech.

But before either one of us starts morphing away from our chosen computing gender (when you think about it that way, Grant, you've gotta be the girl), let's see if we can have one of those "fair fights" that marriage counselors talk about, where each of us is required to "catch the football" before shouting back (yes, I have some experience in that arena).

So let me begin by taking a cue from my teenage son, who is enjoying his participation in high school debate competitions. Whenever he has practiced in front of me (or at least when I was listening closely), he began by stating the "core values" of his position.

Where business computing is concerned, my primary core value is functionality -- that is, "getting work done." A lot of things flow from that, but I'm not going to lay them all out just yet (after all, I've learned from my son that the real purpose of a "core value" is to set a trap, not to state an objective principle). Of course, like any good lawyer, I reserve the right to identify some other core values along the way, but "functionality" seems like a good place to begin.

So what's your "core value," Grant?

PC vs. Mac: A challenge to my fellow solo Grant Griffiths

2007-02-18T17:49:45-05:00

UPDATE:

Proving that he spends as much time at his Mac as I do at my PC, Grant Griffiths has responded within minutes to the challenge I posted below, saying "Bring it on, Ben!"

So now we need to establish the rules of engagement. Out of mutual respect for our respective blogs, I am proposing that Grant advance his arguments for the Mac on Home Office Lawyer while I advance my arguments for the PC here on Soloblawg.com. Of course, we will link and trackback to each other's posts as appropriate. What say you, Grant?

Since I started this battle, I will post something in the next day or so to get things rolling (although, knowing Grant, he is banging out his opening salvo at this very moment).

ORIGINAL POST:

There's a lot to like about Home Office Lawyer, a blog by solo practitioner Grant Griffiths in Kansas. In fact, it appears that Grant and I are kindred spirits in many respects. Except ...

Except that he is a die-hard fan of Mac computers, as even a cursory inspection of his blog quickly reveals. I've been using PCs for over 20 years, ever since I purchased an IBM PC-XT in the early 1980s. Yes, I admire the good design sense that has characterized every product Apple has ever produced -- after all, that's one of the reasons I like my Video iPod so much. But when it comes to business computing -- and especially when it comes to the task of assembling a set of hardware and software tools to support a technology-leveraged solo practice -- I hold the opinion that the PC World continues to offer many more options and solutions than the Mac World.

I am therefore writing this post as an open letter to Grant, encouraging him to join me in a friendly but earnest online discussion about the relative benefits and shortcomings of PCs and Macs as hardware platforms for solo practitioners. He's been advancing the "Mac side" of the debate on Home Office Lawyer for quite some time, so now I intend to press the "PC side" on this blog, whether he joins me in a direct dialog or not.

What say you, Grant?

Blog design tip: Snap.com now offers enhanced options for preview balloons

2007-02-18T17:04:01-05:00

My fellow bloggers may be interested to know that Snap.com now permits you to customize the appearance of "preview balloons" for links on your blogs. To customize (or add) preview balloons with the new optional features, select "Get Started Now" on the Snap Preview Anywhere page of Snap.com's website.

As you will see from the external links on this blog (even in the text of this post), it is now possible to limit the "trigger" of the preview balloon to a small icon that appears automatically next to each external link. That makes the preview balloons less of an annoyance to users who want to click on a link without seeing a preview of another site.

You can also control whether a preview balloon appears at all for a particular external link, and whether preview balloons also appear for internal links. To learn more about those options, visit Snap.com's FAQ page.

Preview balloons are a nice touch so long as they don't get in the way. Just a few days ago, I received an e-mail message from a friend who manages a literary website who wrote, "I MUST know how you created those preview balloons on your blog!"

From "row office" to "ROWE" office: the benefits and challenges of a results-only work environment

2007-02-18T16:10:43-05:00

(NOTE: The following article originally appeared as my guest post on Build a Solo Practice, LLC, an excellent blog about solo practice published by Susan Cartier Liebel. Ms. Liebel teaches a course on solo practice at the Quinnipiac University School of Law in Hamden, Connecticut and is also a national consultant to solo and small firm practitioners.)

Corporate America has become fascinated with the concept of the "ROWE" workplace. ROWE is an acronym for a "results-only work environment." It means a workplace where your performance is measured almost entirely by the results achieved, not when you arrive at your desk, how many hours you're at the office each week, or whether you even come to the office at all.

Best Buy has recently adopted "ROWE" as an official policy at its headquarters in Minneapolis, perhaps partly to create some new buzz about the company in the business world. See "Smashing the Clock" in the December 11 issue of Business Week. It has even spun off a consulting group call CultureRX to teach other large companies how to adopt ROWE concepts in their workplaces.

But "ROWE" is hardly a new concept to solo practitioners -- especially "SOHO" lawyers like me, who work in small offices or home offices. We have been developing the guiding principles of the "ROWE" office for years.

We already know that a "ROWE" office is a double-edged sword, like any other approach to business management. Sure, it's great to be able to choose your own hours, to focus on getting work done rather than getting to the office on time, and even to do your work on a notebook computer in a cafe across the street (in my case, it's a Panera Bakery and Cafe). Those aspects of a "ROWE" office are what make it appealing to people in conventional work settings.

But the other side of the coin is that a "ROWE" office requires a level of self-initiative, self-management and self-discipline that would surprise and frustrate many people who punch a clock in one fashion or another.

Most people think, "Sure, I would be more than happy to have my value measured entirely by the results I achieve," but many of them probably don't realize the extent to which they expect to be compensated for their efforts merely because they show up and go through the motions each day. In the conventional office world, the old "80/20" rule means that 80% of doing your job lies in doing the job, as opposed to getting results. That's why corporations constantly find it necessary to remind their people about things like customer service, delivery of outcomes and "meeting or exceeding expectations."

In a "results-only work environment," those things are the entire ball of wax, and it can actually come as something of a surprise to people who transition into a SOHO workplace after working for years in a conventional office setting. Read any good book about launching your own solo practice, and you will find that the author's first piece of advice is this: Think carefully about whether you possess the personal attributes -- in particular, the self-initiative, self-management and self-discipline -- to work independently. It's good advice, as any experienced solo practitioner can tell you.

I spent the first two decades of my legal career in "row" offices, both as an associate and partner in large law firms and as a corporate litigation attorney in the law department of a multi-national oil company. But three years ago I decided to pursue a long-standing dream of launching the ultimate "ROWE" office - a solo practice that makes extensive use of computer technology and outside vendors as a substitute for conventional investments in overhead and support staff.

For example, I have no regular support staff. A conventional lawyer might ask, "But how do you get your typing done?" The question itself reveals a failure to understand what is possible in today's world. I dictate most of my work directly into my computer (using Dragon Naturally Speaking, version 9). I only need to dictate the text that is unique to the particular letter or pleading, because the "shell document" is already on the computer.

For long documents, I have also used a legal secretarial service in England that types my dictation overnight, while I sleep. It's really quite simple: I dictate the text into a hand-held digital recorder (an Olympus DS-2), then transfer the audio file to my computer and send it by e-mail to the typist in London. She types up the text at her computer, just as any other secretary would do, and then sends the word processing file back to me. It is as if I were paying a secretary to work from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am, because London is 5 hours ahead of me on the clock. But I'm not doing anything of the sort; I'm just paying a conventional rate to have the text typed up.

The other side of the coin, however, is that I don't say "Hello" to a secretary every morning. And that means that I don't have a co-worker sitting close to my desk who helps me get started in the morning. My practice management software tells me what I need to accomplish during the day (I use Time Matters, version 8.0). But there's no one else to remind me of what's on that list, Just as significantly, there are no people around me who create a psychological imperative to get down to business, as there are in any conventional office.

Most days, I love the freedom and independence. But some days, I will admit to wishing that I could just drag myself to an office, go through the motions of that office, and come home at night telling myself that I had put in a decent day -- the same thing most people do from time to time. In the final analysis, however, I have the joy of knowing that my successes are entirely my own.

These are a few of my favorite (software) things

2007-02-18T15:40:40-05:00

My last article discussed the hardware side of a technology-leveraged solo practice. In the weeks ahead, I plan to post a series of articles about software -- specifically, the software that I have found to be most helpful to me as a solo practitioner who works without any full-time support staff.

Each article will explain why I recommend a particular software program or package. I will also include a few tips and tricks based on my own experience.

Here, in alphabetical order, are the programs I intend to write about. If you are especially interested in any one of them, post a comment and I will discuss it first:

Adobe Acrobat Professional, version 8.0 (digital document storage, reproduction and editing)
CaseMap 7 (case analysis and trial prep)
Copernic Desktop Search, version 1.70, build 974 (document retrieval)
Dragon Naturally Speaking, version 9.0 (speech recognition)
FeedDemon, version 2.0.0.20 (RSS feed management)
Microsoft Office OneNote 2007 (unstructured note-taking)
Mozilla Firefox, version 2.0.0.1 (enhanced web browsing)
NoteMap, version 2.0 (outlining and drafting)
Olympus DSS Player 2.0 (voice file management)
PaperPort Professional, version 11.0 (digital document management)
Stamps.com (Internet-based address verification and postage)
Time Matters and Billing Matters Plus, version 8.0 (practice management and time accounting)

A solo attorney's complete computer array: desktop, tablet, ultra-light and pocket pc

2007-01-09T16:12:16-05:00

A new subscriber has asked me to describe the hardware platform of my solo practice.

I have four different kinds of computers, and I typically use at least three of them during any 24-hour period. They are:

A Dell desktop system with a very large (24") monitor and a variety of peripherals, including:
- a Mirra Personal Server;
- an HP LaserJet multi-function printer/scanner/fax machine;
- a Xerox DocuMate high-speed scanner;
- two label printers -- a Dymo Twin Turbo and a Seiko 200 -- loaded with three different types of labels, including Internet-based postage;
- a Maxtor external disk drive which maintains a continuous, real-time backup of all my data (and is placed in my safe at the end of each workday);
- a Logitech USB microphone (for dictation and speech recognition, using Dragon Naturally Speaking);
- an Olympus DS-330 Digital Voice Recorder (for portable digital dictation);
- a Logitech QuickCam, for video conferences; and
- a Bose speaker system.
A Gateway Tablet PC (a "convertible" PC that can be used as either a laptop or tablet), which serves as my primary mobile computer. As I will discuss in a separate post, I use the tablet mode to take handwritten notes during client meetings, depositions and conferences, using tablet-aware software programs (in particular, Microsoft OneNote and MindJet MindManager).
A Dell ultra-light notebook PC, which I often use as a writing pad when I am away from my desk but don't need the full functionality of the Tablet PC (e.g., when I start thinking about something in the middle of the night and want to do some writing in bed); and
A Verizon (AudioVox) Pocket PC, which stays with me at all times. In addition to serving as my mobile phone, it carries a synchronized copy of my calendar, contacts, in-box, etc. and gives me wireless access to e-mail and web pages whereever there is cell-phone service. It also has text and audio note-taking capabilities which synchronize automatically with Microsoft OneNote on my desktop system.

All four machines are networked and synchronized through a secure wireless network. Whenever I walk out the door with either the tablet or the ultra-light, I am carrying a complete and up-to-the-minute copy of all my practice management information, running in Time Matters 7.0. The calendar and contact information on the Pocket PC is likewise sync'd with those components of Time Matters on the desktop.

I have been pleased with all of the products mentioned above, and I have found that using four different types of computers -- a desktop, a tablet, an ultra-light and a pocket pc -- makes sense and works well on a number of levels.

I will have more to say about the way I use this computing platform in other posts on this blawg.

A different reason to have two monitors on the same computer

2007-01-09T14:29:05-05:00

I've noticed that some of my fellow "tech-lawyers" have been extolling the virtues of using two side-by-side monitors connected to the same computer. For example, Ray Dowd recently posted an item titled "Two-Monitor Time Saver" on his blog, Small Firm Life, in which he wrote:

"Attorneys who come to my office are sometimes wowed by the fact that I have two 17" flatscreen monitors [attached to the same computer, sitting side by side] ... It's great for cutting and pasting, working from different sources, entering time or doing another task without leaving a main document that you are 'really' working on."

As Ray indicates, it's really quite simple to attach two monitors to the same computer, so long as you have a video card which provides ports for two monitors. Once the second monitor is physically attached, Windows XP can recognize the presence of that monitor and extend the Windows desktop across both displays. To learn more about how it's done, see this video tutorial at cnet.com.

Ray and other lawyers like to put the two monitors side by side in order to have more territory to compare documents, view multiple applications at once, etc.

I use two monitors on one computer in a different way, for different reasons. One monitor sits on my credenza; the other on my desk. They serve two different, complementary functions, and also give me two different ways of working at the same computer.

The credenza is where I do most of my computer work, especially when I don't have anyone in my office with me. Consequently, the monitor on the credenza is my primary display. It's a huge (24"), high-resolution (1920 x 1200 pixel) landscape display.

That means it's large enough (in both physical dimensions and pixel density) for me to view applications and documents side by side, the way other lawyers do with side-by-side monitors. The price of such a large display is dropping all the time.

The second monitor hangs on a swivel arm on the edge of my desk, which is actually a pedestal table. It's an ample (19") high-resolution (1280 x 1024) flat panel display. It's connected to the computer under the credenza by a 10' monitor extension cable.

It's quite easy to move an application from one monitor to the other because Windows treats the two displays as if they were seamlessly attached side by side. Thus, with a flick of the wrist, I can drag any application from the credenza monitor over to the desktop monitor, then swing around in my chair and work in that application on the desktop monitor.

I use a wireless (Bluetooth) keyboard and mouse, so I can simply grab the keyboard or the mouse (or both) as I swing around in my chair and use them on either the credenza or the desk.

I have found that there are several benefits to this setup, as follows:

I can show anything on the computer to a person sitting across the desk without asking him or her to come around the desk and look over my shoulder at the monitor on the credenza.
I don't have to worry as much about using the computer in that way, because the other person can only see the particular application that I have dragged onto the desktop monitor for our discussion. The Windows taskbar can only be accessed on the "primary" display siting on the credenza, and all minimized applications can be seen only on that display.
In fact, I often turn off the credenza monitor while I am meeting with someone across the desk. If there is something I want to discuss on screen together, I turn on the credenza monitor; open the application; drag it over to the desktop monitor; then turn the credenza monitor back off. I can then work with my guest with complete confidence that nothing will be seen on the screen unintentionally or inappropriately.
The desktop monitor also gives me a second, alternative workstation. My telephone and many of my peripherals (e.g., voice recognition microphone, webcam, digital voice recorder) are located on the credenza, so it makes sense to face the credenza when I am doing a variety of things at once. But I have more space to spread out papers on my table-desk, so it makes sense to swing around and use the desktop display when I am using one application intensively in connection with a particular file -- for example, when I am using CaseMap while going through a file.
I've also found that there are ergonomic and psychological benefits to having two different ways of working on the same computer in the same place. In particular, it's easier to work for long periods of time because I can scratch the itch to pull away from one screen by simply turning around and continuing to work at the other, facing a different background.

Works for me. Might work for you, too.

'The Successful Lawyer' is a great example of 'virtual mentoring' available to all lawyers

2006-05-05T16:04:00-04:00

Over the past week I have been listening to an audio CD program called The Successful Lawyer: Powerful Strategies for Transforming Your Practice. It's a six-disk audio version of the book by management consultant Gerry Riskin.

Both products are published by the ABA Law Practice Management Section and can be purchased on-line at www.ababooks.org. Here is a search-results page which provides purchasing information for the book alone, the CD set alone and a combination of the two.

Here's how the book is described at the ABA's on-line bookstore:

"Global management consultant and trusted advisor to many of the worlds' largest law firms, Gerald Riskin authors this comprehensive and inspirational book conveying practical and helpful solutions to make your practice not only more profitable, but far more satisfying. Large firm or small, regardless of position, The Successful Lawyer provides you with valuable road-tested advice that is immediately helpful and rewarding. This comprehensive book explains how to transform the lawyer you are right now into a more exciting, fulfilling, and profitable one. You'll learn how to re-plan your future and build skills in a wide arena, including areas such as active listening, client rapport, effective delegation, dealing with complaints, effective meetings and business development. Dare to dream! If you're looking for ways to enhance your personal practice, allowing you both added income and increased satisfaction, then look no further."

I have found the audio version to be absolutely excellent, and I recommend it without hesitation to any practicing lawyer in any practice setting. Gerry Riskin is a pleasure to listen to, and his words resonate with on-the-ground, in-the-trenches credibility from his experience as the managing partner of a successful law firm.

Riskin is rapidly establishing himself as the Tom Peters of the legal profession, as you can tell from visiting his excellent blog, Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices

There is a larger point that needs to be made here. It concerns how "mentoring" in the legal profession has changed over the past twenty years or so.

Briefly stated, it is now possible for any lawyer in any practice setting to obtain "virtual mentoring" of the highest quality from books, audio CDs and on-line resources -- including, in particular, the many fine publications of the ABA Law Practice Management Section.

That's a wonderful thing for lawyers in firms of all sizes, because "virtual mentoring" fills a gap that exists in large and small firms alike. After all, let's be honest: solo practitioners are not the only lawyers who suffer from a lack of personal coaching in today's busy and competitive legal profession.

I've got Gerry Riskin at my elbow. How 'bout you?

In praise of law-related podcasts: this is not your teenager's iPod

2006-04-21T16:08:00-04:00

While riding the Blue Line into downtown Chicago this morning, I listened to the March 28 oral argument to the United States Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the case that questions the legality of the Guantanamo military commissions.

How was that possible? It was possible because the Georgetown University Law Center recorded the argument and uploaded the audio file onto iTunes as a new installment of the Law Center's podcast. When I connected my iPod to my computer earlier this week, the new installment was automatically transferred onto the iPod because I had previously selected the GU Law Center's podcast as one that I wanted to follow. When I boarded the Blue Line near O'Hare, I checked for new entries on my iPod, saw that they included the oral argument in Hamdan, and decided to tune in during the 45-minute ride into the Loop.

It was free, and it took almost no effort on my part.

So, would you like to have a conversation about the Hamdan case? I know exactly what was said in the oral argument to the United States Supreme Court. Do you?

Friends, this is an example of why you're hearing so much about podcasts lately.

Incidentally, you can also listen to the Hamdan argument by playing the audio file directly from a page of the Law Center's web site. But using an iPod is easier on a train.