Aside from the fact that this guy has produced some decent software, I can't believe that hardware/software configurations of random people is interesting discussion matter.
People think that if they emulate successful people they will be more successful themselves. So it's about a form of fashion.
'X uses brand Y hardware, that must be a factor in his success, so if I buy brand Y as well I'll stand a better chance at success'
Never mind that 'X' would probably make a go of it given nothing but a teletype and the people that emulate 'X' couldn't make good use of a cluster with 50 nodes and a wall sized display.
It's not the hardware that matters, it's the guys & girls using it that make the difference.
There are some good articles on there - Andrew "bunnie" Huang[1] shows us how he can be handed a next-day plane ticket and not miss any work time, Jason Rohrer develops games on a seven-year-old laptop[2], Mark Pilgrim explains haw his writing setup isn't actually that important[3].
However, about half of the interviews on there are some variation on "Apple laptop, Apple monitor, standard Apple suite of applications + some others", which does wear thin after a while.
I'm a little bit curious about the setup that really productive developers (Linus Torvalds, for instance) use - if someone goes to find out, fine by me. I don't think Jason Fried is really a developer though - or is he?
> Shure SE530s keeps everyone out of my head [snip]
When I gave up headphones, I realized how much noise I subscribed to. I found it's not the keeping everyone out of your head inasmuch as it is the general quiet with the occasional person and it feels more disarming than expected noise (something piped through buds).
In a couple short months without headphones compared to years with, I prefer the quiet with interruption to constant stimulation.
Usually but it depends on a few variables and it's not always worth it.
Because you're not used to it, high end equipment doesn't sound amazing in comparison at first - just oddly different. (At least not in a $400 to $100 comparison - the biggest difference is going from $10 to $100.) Once you're acclimatized, though, it's really hard to go back until your hearing naturally degrades and you're stuck buying high end gear.
So the rational approach is to never buy high end headphones or earphones at all and instead aim for the highest quality stuff under around $150. It'll get you 90% of the way there and stop you becoming an audio freak chasing an expensive pipedream. Almost no-one will give this advice, though, since audiophiles want to rationalize their purchases and reviewers or stores want you to buy their crap.
I've experimented with earphones from £5's worth all the way up to £230 odd for Ultimate Ears 10vi triple fi pros (I've also tried Shure SE530's and feel the triple fi's beat 'em).
The difference between the triple fi's and basically any other earphone is actually pretty astounding. The main difference is clarity; though it's a cliche, it really is a case of hearing individual instruments, etc. (though you need high bitrate for this obviously).
It is, however, an extremely expensive hobby (and you can't go back). Another great thing about the triple fi's is that you can replace the cable. Since the cable is usually the failure point of any set of earphones this actually makes it quite economical compared to, say, £50 earphones you need to replace far more often.
I've spent roughly half that on single pairs of Shure headphones, and while I like the sound quality, I recommend avoiding them, because the cables are of very low quality. Jason probably doesn't wear his headphones out in the Chicago winters, but I do, and every pair of Shure's I've bought (I think I'm up to 4) has ended up with frayed cables or cable/driver connections.
Shure has an amazing replacement policy (it's basically no-questions-asked) and I like the company and the user experience, but losing a pair of $200 headphones every 6-9 months isn't acceptable.
I've been using the Ultimate Buds (what a terrible name [for headphones]) versions of FutureSonics FS-1's and Etymotics; in both cases, UB swaps out the OEM cable with Apple's vastly superior version, which has the added benefit of working as a handsfree with my iPhone. I highly recommend these.
It's not hard to see why Shure's high-end pairs are of higher quality than the low-end pairs; the 530's have more drivers than the 115's.
I had a pair of Shures that I paid over $200 for. Every other earbud I've tried has been terrible. They're tinny, they don't fit right, and you have to blast them to get over moderate ambient noise. I worked in a fairly noisy office when I had the Shures, and I could turn the music down to one click over 0 and still hear nothing but music. The sound quality was also a lot better than just about anything else I've used (save for my $290 pair of over-ear headphones). I ended up losing them (or they were stolen, not sure) and just never replaced them. I mostly work from home now, and no one here is going to care if I turn up the speakers connected to my desktop.
Were they $300 better, or even $50 or $100 better? That depends on what your priorities are. Me, I've spent a lot of time and money collecting a high-quality music library, and I prefer to hear it through headphones that are transparent and don't lose detail. Your priorities might be completely different.
Depends. I can't hear the difference between $100 and $400 headphones in most cases. I have a $99 pair of Apple in-ear headphones and they work great.
I like to keep my music library fairly small, so everything's encoded at 160 or 192kbps mp3. Fancy headphones only help if you're encoding much higher or using FLAC/ALAC.
I am not sure about this specific model, but a lot of the high end ones are custom molded to fit your ear canal. It's a luxury, obviously, but if you are using them a lot and you can afford it, I think it's worth it. The ones I have double quite well as earplugs when I don't listen to music, and work far better than any specifically designed noise canceling headphones I've tried.
If you're over 35 don't bother, your ears will have deteriorated too much due to aging. Under that it might be worth it, the younger you are the better your ears. Try them before you buy them, and try a bunch of them in different price ranges it's not pocket change.
You can grab those shures for just above $200 on eBay. I got them but if I could go back in time I would have gotten something cheaper, or a headphone instead.
Pretty much what I use - a 15" Macbook and headphones, but I WISH I'd bought the matte hi-res screen. Oh, I guess he doesn't have an Ubuntu desktop, though. His loss.
Now THAT is luxury. Okay, so some people think I'm weird, but I really don't like background noise.
They're really awesome for hotels, too. Noisy air conditioner? Sex next door? People clunking the doors down the hall? Who cares! I can't even hear it! Oh man, I shouldn't have even looked at that - now I see they have the deluxe 105 model....
> Now I just use the laptop screen. One screen all the time. I also like the smaller screen because it forces me to make better use of the space. I found myself getting mess on a 30".
Last year I bought the 13" MBP and a 22" LCD, but with the new higher-res screens on 15" MBPs, I think this is the way to go. Same setup wether you're at the office or in a coffee shop. Next time I upgrade I'll definitely get rid of the external screen.
The new 15" 1680x1050 matte screen looks really gorgeous but at 129 PPI I fear the text of most web sites could be too tiny. And I hate to zoom web pages!
In fact the iMacs 21/27 have a 102/109 PPI resolution, but then you keep the display of a desktop computer at a higher distance compared to the screen of a notebook, so the higher PPI on the MBP HR could be appropriate.
Enjoy that feeling. You have a similar setup to a multi millionaire who's not ignorant about tech.
It's notable how he sticks to his principles. I suspect I'd have 101 bizarre high-end computers and clusters around the place if I were wealthy, though this is probably why I'm not ;-)
I think it's more the case that a lot of the interviewees don't explain how they arrived at the setup in question - they just list what they have, and that takes out the interesting bit.
If you add in some history, you can make your first vacuum cleaner worth reading about (Keita Takahashi's interview)
Tangentially related (I'll use the way Jason dropped back from a dual setup to a single screen as an excuse for this):
What's the best way to get a triple monitor setup working under Ubuntu? I'd like a single desktop, and the OS to understand the monitors (ie, not treat two monitors as a single monitor like some old USB adapters did).
Recommended hardware? RTFM is fine if you give me a pointer..
[+] [-] fairlyodd|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|15 years ago|reply
'X uses brand Y hardware, that must be a factor in his success, so if I buy brand Y as well I'll stand a better chance at success'
Never mind that 'X' would probably make a go of it given nothing but a teletype and the people that emulate 'X' couldn't make good use of a cluster with 50 nodes and a wall sized display.
It's not the hardware that matters, it's the guys & girls using it that make the difference.
[+] [-] cytzol|15 years ago|reply
However, about half of the interviews on there are some variation on "Apple laptop, Apple monitor, standard Apple suite of applications + some others", which does wear thin after a while.
[1] http://andrew.huang.usesthis.com/
[2] http://jason.rohrer.usesthis.com/
[3] http://mark.pilgrim.usesthis.com/
[+] [-] tezza|15 years ago|reply
So it's clearly a knowledge sharing plus.
It happens to be based around pseudo-famous people, but this makes it more readable than just a sample of coders with variances
[+] [-] davidw|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gry|15 years ago|reply
When I gave up headphones, I realized how much noise I subscribed to. I found it's not the keeping everyone out of your head inasmuch as it is the general quiet with the occasional person and it feels more disarming than expected noise (something piped through buds).
In a couple short months without headphones compared to years with, I prefer the quiet with interruption to constant stimulation.
[+] [-] jfornear|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petercooper|15 years ago|reply
Because you're not used to it, high end equipment doesn't sound amazing in comparison at first - just oddly different. (At least not in a $400 to $100 comparison - the biggest difference is going from $10 to $100.) Once you're acclimatized, though, it's really hard to go back until your hearing naturally degrades and you're stuck buying high end gear.
So the rational approach is to never buy high end headphones or earphones at all and instead aim for the highest quality stuff under around $150. It'll get you 90% of the way there and stop you becoming an audio freak chasing an expensive pipedream. Almost no-one will give this advice, though, since audiophiles want to rationalize their purchases and reviewers or stores want you to buy their crap.
[+] [-] singular|15 years ago|reply
The difference between the triple fi's and basically any other earphone is actually pretty astounding. The main difference is clarity; though it's a cliche, it really is a case of hearing individual instruments, etc. (though you need high bitrate for this obviously).
It is, however, an extremely expensive hobby (and you can't go back). Another great thing about the triple fi's is that you can replace the cable. Since the cable is usually the failure point of any set of earphones this actually makes it quite economical compared to, say, £50 earphones you need to replace far more often.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
Shure has an amazing replacement policy (it's basically no-questions-asked) and I like the company and the user experience, but losing a pair of $200 headphones every 6-9 months isn't acceptable.
I've been using the Ultimate Buds (what a terrible name [for headphones]) versions of FutureSonics FS-1's and Etymotics; in both cases, UB swaps out the OEM cable with Apple's vastly superior version, which has the added benefit of working as a handsfree with my iPhone. I highly recommend these.
It's not hard to see why Shure's high-end pairs are of higher quality than the low-end pairs; the 530's have more drivers than the 115's.
[+] [-] ahlatimer|15 years ago|reply
Were they $300 better, or even $50 or $100 better? That depends on what your priorities are. Me, I've spent a lot of time and money collecting a high-quality music library, and I prefer to hear it through headphones that are transparent and don't lose detail. Your priorities might be completely different.
[+] [-] mikeyur|15 years ago|reply
I like to keep my music library fairly small, so everything's encoded at 160 or 192kbps mp3. Fancy headphones only help if you're encoding much higher or using FLAC/ALAC.
[+] [-] smhinsey|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrischen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsantos|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nagnatron|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidw|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
I actually wear hearing protection ear muffs, though - http://www.amazon.com/Peltor-H9A-Optime-Over-Earmuffs/dp/B00...
Now THAT is luxury. Okay, so some people think I'm weird, but I really don't like background noise.
They're really awesome for hotels, too. Noisy air conditioner? Sex next door? People clunking the doors down the hall? Who cares! I can't even hear it! Oh man, I shouldn't have even looked at that - now I see they have the deluxe 105 model....
[+] [-] grk|15 years ago|reply
Last year I bought the 13" MBP and a 22" LCD, but with the new higher-res screens on 15" MBPs, I think this is the way to go. Same setup wether you're at the office or in a coffee shop. Next time I upgrade I'll definitely get rid of the external screen.
[+] [-] manosk|15 years ago|reply
In fact the iMacs 21/27 have a 102/109 PPI resolution, but then you keep the display of a desktop computer at a higher distance compared to the screen of a notebook, so the higher PPI on the MBP HR could be appropriate.
[+] [-] MJR|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Qz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grasshoper|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jw84|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsantos|15 years ago|reply
to this: http://imgur.com/No4os.jpg
and them to this: http://imgur.com/JVqRa.jpg
[+] [-] zdw|15 years ago|reply
Tell that to DHH: http://www.mibz.com/21876-one-and-only-pagani-zonda-hh-owner...
[+] [-] jkahn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w1ntermute|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petercooper|15 years ago|reply
It's notable how he sticks to his principles. I suspect I'd have 101 bizarre high-end computers and clusters around the place if I were wealthy, though this is probably why I'm not ;-)
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] antidaily|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xsltuser2010|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cytzol|15 years ago|reply
If you add in some history, you can make your first vacuum cleaner worth reading about (Keita Takahashi's interview)
[+] [-] trustfundbaby|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pilif|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nl|15 years ago|reply
What's the best way to get a triple monitor setup working under Ubuntu? I'd like a single desktop, and the OS to understand the monitors (ie, not treat two monitors as a single monitor like some old USB adapters did).
Recommended hardware? RTFM is fine if you give me a pointer..