Matt RaibleMatt Raible is a writer with a passion for software. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

The Angular Mini-Book The Angular Mini-Book is a guide to getting started with Angular. You'll learn how to develop a bare-bones application, test it, and deploy it. Then you'll move on to adding Bootstrap, Angular Material, continuous integration, and authentication.

Spring Boot is a popular framework for building REST APIs. You'll learn how to integrate Angular with Spring Boot and use security best practices like HTTPS and a content security policy.

For book updates, follow @angular_book on Twitter.

The JHipster Mini-Book The JHipster Mini-Book is a guide to getting started with hip technologies today: Angular, Bootstrap, and Spring Boot. All of these frameworks are wrapped up in an easy-to-use project called JHipster.

This book shows you how to build an app with JHipster, and guides you through the plethora of tools, techniques and options you can use. Furthermore, it explains the UI and API building blocks so you understand the underpinnings of your great application.

For book updates, follow @jhipster-book on Twitter.

10+ YEARS


Over 10 years ago, I wrote my first blog post. Since then, I've authored books, had kids, traveled the world, found Trish and blogged about it all.
You searched this site for "netbeans". 49 entries found.

You can also try this same search on Google.

Maven Integration for Eclipse

If you're a Maven user and like Eclipse, you might want to checkout the new Maven Integration Plugin for Eclipse 0.9.0. Euxx has a couple blog posts talking about the new features - looks like pretty cool stuff to me.

The second feature is especially cool. If your dependencies supply SCM information - you can import the project from its source control system. Maven may have warts, but it also has incredible potential.

Posted in Java at Mar 12 2008, 04:22:43 PM MDT 2 Comments

Dynamic Language Shootout: Groovy vs. Jython vs. JRuby

Travis Jensen has an interesting post titled Our Dynamic Language Shootout:

...
For a variety of deployment reasons, we've decided that whatever we choose will be deployed on the JVM. As a result, this comparison is for the JVM versions of the languages, e.g. JRuby, Jython, and, of course, Groovy, which has no other deployment option. I want to also clarify that I have the most experience with Python and I really like the language. There is no doubt that the language influenced me in my evaluation, but I really tried to remain objective in spite of that.
...
As I did the evaluation, I tried to come up with a broad spectrum of important information. Others at my company gave feedback on the important characteristics. In the end, these are the features that we felt were most important: the interaction between Java and the selected language, the IDE support, the learning curve, existing web frameworks, and the existing community support for the JVM implementation of the language.

His conclusion: Groovy.

I don't think it should surprise you at this point that we chose Groovy. Even being openly biases towards Python first and Ruby second (hey, it's cooler :), I could not, in good conscience, choose either of them for melding into our existing environment.

If I were starting from scratch on a project, my choice would be very different. If I wanted to target the JVM, I would choose JRuby (at least until Jython 2.5 and Django are available); if I wasn't targeting the JVM, then it would be, for my Python, but I'd be equally comfortable choosing Ruby.

Well written Travis - I look forward to reading more about the new life you're breathing into your stilted development practices.

Posted in Open Source at Feb 20 2008, 12:08:29 AM MST 12 Comments

REST and Seam Talks at Denver's JUG

After a long hiatus, I decided to attend the Denver JUG meeting this evening. Tonight there's a couple of interesting talks:

I'll do my best to live-blog these sessions, so hopefully you can read along and learn everything I do.

Give It a REST by Brian Sletten
This talk isn't an implementation talk, it's more of a motivational talk. Brian is trying to answer the question "Why do we care?". We care because we have a lot of WS-Dissatisfaction. "Conventional" Web Services are often:

  • too difficult for non-trivial tasks (real complexity)
  • too complex for trivial tasks (artificial complexity)

RPC-based Web Services are mythically interoperable and time/process coupled in painful ways. SOAP has largely become popular because of marketing dollars behind in. REST is more like the "hippy" way that has grass-roots support with no corporate sponsor.

What makes SOAP difficult? It's remote procedure calls and its tunneled using existing application protocols (HTTP). Furthermore, there are no nouns (mappings to business terms), only handlers. There are no semantics, only handlers. When you tie yourself to a contract/WSDL, you can have anything back that you want - so as long as its simple XML. This isn't entirely true because a lot of things can be shoved into XML (Word documents that are Base64 encoded).

The main problem with SOAP is it solves a problem that most people don't have. It solves an edge case, rather than the main problem.

Many people say "SOAP is secure and REST isn't".

Why do people believe this? It's because of the long list of SOAP-related security acronyms: XML Encryption, XML Signature, XKMS, SAML, XACML, WS-Security, WS-Trust, XrML. Even if you're using these in your system, there's no proof that your implementation is secure. REST is what we all use on the web with online shopping, etc. We don't seem to have a problem with the security we use everyday on the web, do we?

SAO is an architectural style promoting loose coupling among software participants. Sompanies have rigid definitions of what constitutes a SOA. Many believe that SOAP is an essential piece, but it's not. SOAP 1.2 and Doc Lit are improvements, but are they necessary? Interestingly, 85% of Amazon's users chose REST over SOAP when given the choice.

What is REST? The acronym stands for REpresentational State Transfer. It's an architectural style based on certain constraints designed to elicit properties of scalability and extensibility. It's an idealized notion of how the early web should work and helped drive the way it eventually did work. It's more than just URLs!

Resource-Oriented Computing focuses on information spaces, not code or objects. It focuses on logical connections and reduces complexity by separating actions from nouns. In the history of the web, we started with URLs that pointed to documents. Eventually, these documents became dynamic and were generated on-the-fly.

URLs are locations on the web that are horrible names because they change so much. URIs are good names that have no way of being resolved. Fundamentally, REST is a separation of the parts of the system: Nouns, Verbs and Representation. A Resource (in a REST architecture) can be a file, a service or a concept. It can also have different representations. Resources are named with Resource Identifiers. It's simply the means of naming a resource. It's a standard syntax that allows various schemes. Often known as URIs (or IRIs). It's orthogonal to satisfying the reference and it's one of the missing pieces of "normal" web services.

Examples of Representation include 1) a particular dereferencing of a Resource Identifier to a Resource at a particular time, 2) a byte-stream tagged with metadata or 3) it could change based on request or processing/display capabilities of the client (Firefox vs. WAP).

REST's verbs are design decisions to minimize the the complexity of implementing a system. GET retrieves a resource and always returns the exact same result. It doesn't change anything in the backend system. Because of this, it allows for easier layering of your system - particularly when you introduce caching for GETs. POST is used to create (or update) a Resource. It does not require a "known URI" and it supports the append operation. PUT creates (or updates) a Resource, but requires a "known URI" and also supports an overwrite operation. Lastly, there is DELETE, which removes a Resource. This is not supported in modern browsers. Just because browsers don't support them doesn't mean you can't implement them in your applications.

REST's concepts were developed by Roy Fielding in his thesis. He was trying to create a system that had the following architectural properties: performance, scalability, generality, simplicity and modifiability. REST allows us to create true client-server applications. To satisfy scalability requirements, REST is stateless. All parameters travel with the request and no session information is maintained on the server. This improves scalability through load-balancing and allows visibility of intermediary processors.

One of the first things that becomes a bottleneck in enterprise systems is the database. This works fine if you like paying Oracle. By using REST and HTTP concepts, it's easy to take advantage of a cache. This allows replication of an external data set where it's too large to copy locally. REST allows you to create Layered Systems that allow you to have managed dependencies between layers. Having a RESTful architecture allows you to swap out the backend without changing the front-end and vise-versa.

Now Brian is going to do some demos using NetKernel. He recommends using HTML documents to describe services. The beauty of developing a RESTful system is there's nothing preventing you from appending ?wsdl to your URLs to return SOAP.

Invoking functionality using web-friendly techniques is a very nice way to build web applications.

What is controversial in REST? When you are not dereferencing you should not look at the contents of the URI string to gain other information.. However, if you structure your URLs in your application in a hierarchical manner, people will be able to use URIs in this way.

What isn't controversial? No one believes you should rely on sessions or other state at the application level. They also believe using nouns, not verbs is an excellent idea.


Seam by Norman Richards
Seam isn't just a web framework, it's an integration technology for building applications for the web. It's a technology that takes your persistence and web technologies and unifies them so you have a simpler view of your system.

First of all, what is Seam?

  • It's a unified component and event model - you access all your components the same way
  • It has a declarative state with a rich context model
  • It provides deep integration with minimal glue code
  • It minimizes configuration, prefers annotations to XML
  • It allows a freedom of architectures and technologies
  • It also allows testing of components in context

With Seam, you have a number of technology choices to make. The first is which business component model you want to use (EJB 3 vs. POJO). You might choose EJB 3 if you want more clustering capabilities. For persistence, you can use Hibernate or any JPA implementation. Norman recommends using JPA if possible. You also have a choice of languages: Java or Groovy (and possibly Scala in the future). Seam gives you a choice of web frameworks. All the examples today will use JSF, but there's also support for GWT and 2.1 will have support for Wicket. Also, there's some non-committers developing support for Flex. Norman believes component-based web frameworks are the best way to develop web applications. While I hear this from a lot of folks component-based framework authors, it seems ironic that the "best" way to develop webapps is not the most popular way (PHP, Struts, Rails).

I think it's ironic that there's a REST (no state) and a Seam (it's all about state) talk in the same night. I'm tempted to ask why a stateful architecture is better than a REST one, but I'm not really that interested in the answer. I think your architecture should be determined by the needs of your application, rather than choosing the architecture and then implementing an application with it.

In addition to choices, Seam gives you a number of tools: CRUD generation, Eclipse and NetBeans support and full IDE support in JBoss Tools / JBoss Developer Studio.

Now Norman is doing a demo - starting by creating a new Seam Web Project in Eclipse. He mentions that he's skipped a number of steps: downloading and installing Seam, downloading and installing JBoss and configuring your Seam installation and database in Eclipse. He has two projects in Eclipse - apparently the New Project wizard creates two - one for the application and one for testing. It's strange that the tests don't go in the actual project. The directory structure has src/action and src/model for your Seam components. After doing some simple CRUD, Norman starts JBoss and looks at the master/detail screens it generates.

To make a Java class a Seam component, you usually only have to add a @Name annotation to the class. While trying to show us how the Authenticator/login works, Norman tried to open components.xml. Unfortunately, this crashed Eclipse and 30 seconds later - following a bevy of "file does not exist" errors, we're back in action. To inject dependencies in a Seam environment, you use the @In annotation. In the example class, here's what the code looks like:

try {
  currentUser = (Person) entityManager.createQuery("select p from Person p where" + 
       " p.email = #{identity.username} and p.password=#{identity.password}").getSingleResult();
} catch (NoSuchEntityException e) {
  currentUser = null;
}

This example appears to encourage title coupling with the data layer, rather than loose coupling (i.e. a DAO layer). I'm sure Seam doesn't prevent you from developing a more loosely coupled application.

Bug Alert: The <h:messages> tag looks like it always has an <li> - even when there's only one message. Struts 2 has the same issue with its <s:errors> tag. It's disappointing that so many Java framework developers don't have more attention to HTML details.

Probably the coolest part of Norman's demo is how Eclipse auto-synchronizes with JBoss so he never has to start/stop anything when he changes Facelets pages or Java classes. Of course, hot deploy should be possible with any web application if you're using Eclipse Web Tools effectively.

I do believe all-in-one starter frameworks like Seam, Rails, Grails and AppFuse are excellent. However, I also believe they're solving a problem that only 10% of companies have. Most companies don't have the ability to start applications from scratch - unless they're a startup. Most companies have an existing infrastructure in place for the backend and they simply need a better web framework to slap a pretty face on it. I don't know the best solution for this, but it seems like a logical choice to RESTify the backend (possibly with a web framework) and then use a modern web framework for the front-end. IMHO, the best web frameworks for a RESTified backend are Flex, GWT and Appcelerator. If nothing else, these appear to be the most hyped for 2008.

Many of the enhancements that Seam has added to the Java web programming model are being pushed back into the Web Beans JSR. With Seam, injection is bi-directional (input and output), is continuous during application invocation and dis-injected after action is done. The whole purpose of this is to let Seam handle the state of your application. By not worrying about storing/maintaining state, you as a developer can concentrate on business logic more and get your applications done faster.

At this point, Norman started talking about Seam's events and how you can use them. Unfortunately, my battery ran out and I drifted off to do some other stuff. I'm sure Seam's Event Model is pretty cool, I just missed it.

Posted in Java at Jan 09 2008, 08:59:45 PM MST 5 Comments

AppFuse 2.0 Released!

I'm extremely happy to announce we've finally finished developing AppFuse 2.0. The road to AppFuse 2.0 has been a long journey through Mavenland, annotations and generics. Thanks to all the developers, contributors and users for helping test, polish and prove that AppFuse 2 is an excellent solution for developing Java-based applications. Your time, patience and usage of AppFuse has made it the strong foundation it is today. Last but certainly not least, thanks to all the great Java developers who wrote the frameworks that AppFuse uses - we're truly standing on the shoulders of giants.

What is AppFuse? Click here to find out.

AppFuse 2.0 is available as a Maven archetype. For information on creating a new project using this release, please see the QuickStart Guide or the demos and videos.

If you've used AppFuse 1.x, but not 2.x, you'll might want to read our Frequently Asked Questions. If you have any questions or issues, please post them to the user mailing list. The Maven Reference Guide has a map of Ant » Maven commands. Maven for Newbies might also be useful if you've never used Maven before. There is some support for Ant in this release.

AppFuse 2.0 contains over 200 pages of documentation, downloadable as a PDF (3 MB). You can also download all its dependencies and install them in your local repository if you want to work offline.

For more information, please see the 2.0 Release Notes. The 2.0 series of AppFuse has a minimum requirement of the following specification versions:

  • Java Servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 (2.1 for JSF)
  • Java 5+

New features in AppFuse 2.0 include:

  • Maven 2 Integration
  • Upgraded WebWork to Struts 2
  • JDK 5, Annotations, JSP 2.0, Servlet 2.4
  • JPA Support
  • Generic CRUD backend
  • Full Eclipse, IDEA and NetBeans support
  • Fast startup and no deploy with Maven Jetty Plugin
  • Testable on multiple appservers and databases with Cargo and profiles

We appreciate the time and effort everyone has put toward contributing code and documentation, posting to the mailing lists, and logging issues.

We're also grateful for the help from our sponsors, particularly Atlassian, Contegix, JetBrains, and Java.net. Atlassian and Contegix are especially awesome: Atlassian has donated licenses to all its products and Contegix has donated an entire server to the AppFuse project. Thanks guys - you rock!

Comments and issues should be posted to the mailing list.

Posted in Java at Sep 18 2007, 03:22:20 PM MDT 7 Comments

Java Web Framework Tools: How many are there?

How many tools are there for the various open source web frameworks in Java? Here's my count:

So where did I get these numbers?

Struts 2's number (4) is based on tmjee's comment on a recent post. Spring MVC consists of Spring IDE, Gaijun Studio and IDEA (which supports Spring XML code-completion). There's no Stripes tools that I know of. JSF's number (12) is from research I did in October 2005 (if you have a definitive list, let me know). Tapestry has Spindle (which only supports 3.0) and 4.0 has an IDEA Plugin. Wicket has NetBeans support (which also exists for JSF (+Facelets), Tapestry and WebWork).

Please let me know if you have any corrections to these numbers. You can also download my presentation if you'd like to refute anything before tomorrow morning. It's noon in Amsterdam right now, so you have 18 hours or so.

Update: I've updated the graphs based on comments. Thanks for your input!

Posted in Java at May 03 2007, 02:17:28 AM MDT 19 Comments

Help me help you (market your web framework)

Rather than trolling through google searches, mailing list archives and Amazon book searches, I'd like to try something new. For those projects represented in my Comparing Java Web Frameworks talks (MyFaces, Spring MVC, Stripes, Struts 2, Tapestry and Wicket), would you be interested in helping me gather statistics? I think by allowing projects to gather their own statistics, we'll get a more accurate number of their statistics. Here's the questions I need you to answer:

  1. How many tools (i.e. IDE plugins) are available for your web framework?
  2. How many jobs are available for your framework on Dice.com? What about Indeed.com?
  3. How many messages where posted to your user mailing list (or forum) in March 2007?
  4. How many books are available for your framework?

Of course, if you don't have time, I'll be more than happy to gather these statistics myself. However, those that do answer might get some extra marketing love during my talk. Answering in a comment or sending me an e-mail are the best ways to provide your findings. Thanks!

Update: Alastair asks for further clarification. Here goes:

> If you have lots of IDE tooling available, it probably means the configuration for the framework is overly complex and unmanageable without tooling.

While this may be true, if your framework is hot or uber productive, people want tools. Especially new developers. Remember there's a plethora of new Java developers every year and a lot of them prefer tool-based solutions. Good or bad, IDEs are nice and people like to use them. I've had many clients dismiss frameworks simply because no tools were available.

> The framework with the largest number of jobs available is probably Struts 1. Enough said.

Yes, you're definitely right. However, Struts 1 is not in this comparison - I dropped it because I don't want to recommend it to anyone.

> People only post to user lists when they are stuck. If the framework is hard to use, there will be lots of e-mails. If it has a steep learning curve, and/or the documentation is poor, this will be particularly so. On the other hand, an active list might point to a large active user base. Who knows which is which from a raw figure?

What about community? Mailing lists and their activity is a sign of an active community. Even though SiteMesh is a mature and good solution, its community sucks. There's little support, no new features, no bug fixes. An open source project w/o a community is tough for a company to adopt. Also, the best communities do a lot more than answer questions on mailing lists. They develop their applications, get advice, offer advice and sometimes even hang out. The Struts list used to have threads 30-50 messages long about development philosophies. When you joined the mailing list, you felt like you were a part of something, not just a user of a product.

> If your framework is fairly stable, and someone has written a fabulous tome on it that is universally acknowledged as "the bible", few people would bother writing another book for it.

I don't agree - this just means there's no market for other books because not that many people are using it. Look at Grails, Groovy, GWT and Rails - there's been quite a few books on each and no slowdown in sight. Then again, there weren't many Ant books and that was/is hugely popular. I'm willing to change this question to "How many good does your framework have?", but that's up to everyone's own interpretation. Again, lots of books means there's an active community outside the immediate mailing list - it's a sign the general "market" is interested and the framework fills a need.

Of course, I am interested in asking the questions that developers want to see answered. Do you have suggestions for replacement (or new) questions? Remember, people like hard facts, not wishy washy statements about how productive and OO your framework is. Every framework can be uber productive if you have the right developer(s) and they're genuinely interested in getting stuff done.

Posted in Java at Apr 26 2007, 01:58:30 PM MDT 15 Comments

Ant vs. Maven

I found a good post from Steve Loughran on what's wrong with Maven's repositories. I agree with most of his points, but would like to point out mvnrepository.com. This site seems to provide good XML Feeds for what's been uploaded to Maven's Central Repository. If you're using Maven, you should probably subscribe to its Atom Feed.

In related news, Timothy M. O'Brien has an entry about Steve's upcoming book: Ant in Action. This book is the 2nd edition of Java Development with Ant. I have a hard time believing Erik Hatcher is helping Steve write Ant in Action - AFAIK, he's off in Rails-land enjoying himself. Regardless, I'm sure Ant in Action will be an excellent book. Java Development with Ant is one of my favorite technical books of all time and is largely responsible for inspiring me to write AppFuse. I read JDwA way back in October 2002 and used a lot of its code to develop AppFuse 1.x's Ant-based build system.

Like Tim, I still like Ant. However, AppFuse 2.x uses Maven 2 and most of the projects I work on these days use Maven 2. It may surprise some folks, but I actually like Maven 2 (not Maven 1). Sure it has issues, but after a year of using it in anger, I know how to solve most of its quirks. AppFuse 2.x users will benefit from this greatly and I'm thinking of changing its tagline to "We make Maven work." ;-)

One of the most interesting things about moving to Maven is we were easily able to make AppFuse more like a framework than a project starter kit. We thought this is what most folks wanted - especially the ability to upgrade a project to the latest version of AppFuse. While some folks wanted this, it seems like most folks liked the full-source version that was a pain-in-the-ass to upgrade. I don't blame them. On the project I'm on, I'll likely be converting to a full-source version before the project is over. That's why APF-675 exists. I doubt we'll make it happen for the 2.0 final release, but it is on our radar of things to do shortly after. With any luck, we'll create a way to migrate projects using embedded AppFuse to full-source AppFuse.

I'd also like to point out something ironic. With AppFuse 1.x, there were a lot of folks that advocated we move to Maven. Their primary reasoning - the Ant build scripts were too long and complicated. How about a good ol' lines of XML comparison for those folks:

  • Lines of Ant-related XML in AppFuse 1.x: 1655
  • Lines of Maven-related XML in AppFuse 2.x: 2847

Oh wait, that's not a fair comparison. The above number is for AppFuse in SVN, which end users won't deal with. A new project created with AppFuse 2.x will likely have a pom.xml with 634 lines. That's about 1/3 of the amount needed for Ant in AppFuse 1.x. Maven hasn't exactly gotten us away from XML hell though. How about a LOC count for archetypes vs. installers:

  • Lines of Ant-related XML for AppFuse 1.x framework installers: 2786
  • Lines of Maven-related XML for AppFuse 2.x archetypes (including archetype's pom.xml files): Too much to count. Creating archetypes is waayyyy too complicated IMO. Basic archetypes seem to be around 740 lines (pom.xml for archetype project, archetype.xml and archetype's pom.xml), modular archetypes are around 870. 740 x 4 + 870 x 4 = 6440. I'm guessing the full-source archetypes will add another 5000 lines of XML. Ugh.

This XML-for-archetypes comparison might be unfair as well. With 1.x, you could only create a webapp, with 2.x, you can create a modular application and chop off the web-portion if you so choose.

Of course, the real benefits of moving to Maven are elsewhere. We've seen quite an uptick on the mailing list in the last few months. There's tools cropping up and I've gotten quite a few inquiries about training (yes, I do have a 3-day course on Spring, Hibernate, Ajax, Maven and AppFuse). To me, AppFuse 2.x seems more complicated than 1.x, but it seems the community thinks otherwise. Judging from the increased amount of developer activity on the project, developers seem more interested in a Maven-based system too. Then again, we are making Maven work!

Posted in Java at Apr 16 2007, 11:26:13 AM MDT 25 Comments

Candy for AppFuse

Candy for AppFuse tries to easy the adoption and usage of AppFuse 2.0 by adding some eye candy in the form of Eclipse Plug-ins. If you want the power of an integrated set of excellent J2EE tools and frameworks managed from the comfort of your IDE, give Candy for AppFuse a try.

Yeah, I know it's huge, but layering the images didn't look right. If you want to shrink this baby down - I'll be happy to replace it

I downloaded and tried out this plugin yesterday. Seems to work quite nicely. See Abel MuiƱo's blog for more details. Well done Abel!

Posted in Java at Apr 04 2007, 05:04:28 PM MDT 3 Comments

Comparing IDEs and Issue Trackers

A couple of good comparison articles came out today:

Issue Tracking Systems Conclusion
These products reviewed are among the most widely used in the Java community. Bugzilla, with an uninspiring user interface, is rich in features, but undeniably cumbersome to install and to maintain. Trac is a good, lightweight solution that should be seriously considered by any development team using Subversion. JIRA is a solid, powerful solution, providing almost all of the features of Bugzilla, and more, in an eminently more usable (and more productive) form ? but at a cost.

I agree with John's conclusion - Bugzilla was cool 5 years ago, but there's much better systems now. If you're running an open source project, it's a no-brainer to use JIRA. If you're working at a company and want to use an open-source solution, Trac works well.

IDE Wars Conclusion
For enterprise development, I'd say IDEA wins out with its rich support for both J2EE and Java EE 5, followed closely by NetBeans (which also does an impressive job here), and last is Eclipse/MyEclipse (mostly due to their current lack of support for Java EE 5).

I agree with Jacek as well. I've been using IDEA almost exclusively for the last 6 months - ever since I started to convert AppFuse to use Maven 2. Eclipse's support for sub-projects has been pretty pitiful and IDEA has *much* better support for web development - particularly JavaScript and CSS.

Lately, I've found myself advocating IDEA and JIRA to clients more and more. A few years ago it was Bugzilla and Eclipse. However, these IDEA and JIRA (as well as Confluence and FishEye) are so cheap in the relative scheme of things - I think they actually pay for themselves these days.

Disclaimer: I use IDEA, Confluence and JIRA on a daily basis. I use Trac and Eclipse on a weekly basis. I paid for my original IDEA license out of my own pocket, but I received my most recent license for speaking at Denver's JUG. Confluence and JIRA are provided free of charge by Atlassian for AppFuse.

Posted in Java at Mar 15 2007, 05:56:02 PM MDT 5 Comments

A New 17" Powerhouse

Yummy On my current project, we're using SQL Server as the backend database. To make this work on my MacBook Pro, I have to run Parallels in the background. While this setup works, it does have issues. The main problem is things slow down a fair amount when running two operating systems. Last week (or was it two weeks ago?), Parallels came out with their latest release, which includes a Coherence mode. If you're a Mac user, I highly recommend this software. It basically lets you run Windows and OS X at the same time, all integrated into the same screen, which the same dock and everything. It's really slick the first time you see it in action.

After working in this mode for a few days, I knew it was the perfect programming platform for me. I tend to use Windows and OS X each 50% of the time, so having them both running side-by-side rocks. But as I worked, I thought to myself, "I need more RAM and more real estate". It seems liked a no-brainer: it was time to upgrade to the 17" MacBook Pro - with all the performance goodies I could get. Against Ben's advice, I bought a new 17" MacBook Pro last week. 3 GB RAM and the fastest disk they had (100 GB 7200 RPM version). Sure, it'd be great to have more disk space, but I'm not going to give up speed for space. If this bad boy really is 40% faster than my current MBP, life is going to be very good.

Of course, my real reason for getting a new laptop was because Julie dropped her PowerBook a couple months ago. I was going to spend $1000 to get it fixed, but it didn't seem like a worthwhile investment. Julie's renovating a new house, so with me working from home, it can get contentious for her trying to get some computer time. So she needed a new laptop. She mentioned she wanted to buy a PC laptop. I shrieked when I heard this and knew I had to buck up and get a new one so she could have my MBP that runs Windows. Did this reasoning work with her? No, not at all. However, when she gets a new computer later this evening, I'm willing to bet she'll be pretty pumped. ;-)

I'll try to post some performance comparisons this evening after I get it all setup.

Update: It's gonna be a while before I can post any performance comparisons. I got the box setup thanks to Apple's "import from another box" feature. However, I'm wwaaaayyyy behind on a lot of commitments, so I'm scrambling to catch up. With any luck, I'll post something this weekend.

Posted in Mac OS X at Mar 13 2007, 10:20:35 AM MDT 11 Comments