A 2x2 grid of 24" screens at 1080p is great for software devs, especially if you are on multiple projects. Over time you do find ways to optimize using the real estate. Anyone who says 4 is too many didn't use them for long enough. If I were to start over, I would replace the 4 with a single 50" 4K, like this 4K Seiki. Takes up the same space on your office desk, and you could use something like Gridy to define snappable desktop areas. Imagine expanding a single large excel sheet on that thing. Terry

Same computer and same age for me. Gotta love those Trash 80s.

Awesome.

I bought an Acer AO522 and I love it. Dual core processor that outperforms most other netbooks, and I upgraded the ram to 4GB myself. I have used the HDMI port to output 1080p MKV files to my TV, without a hitch. The screen on it is 1280 x 720 resolution, which is native 720p. When I'm putting my little girl to sleep at night, I use it to read .pdf and .lit files and its great. http://www.amazon.com/Acer-AO522-BZ897-10-1-Inch-Netbook-Diamond/dp/B004GILTB6[^]

I live in Newfoundland where it can get quite cold in winter (though only -2C today), and heating costs are usually substantial. I took the plunge and went with a geothermal installation in our new home. Well worth it. One month heating for us now, in a 3700 sq ft home, is about $130 CAD in winter.

Hired Mind wrote:

Welcome to the backwards bizzaro world of the collectivist, where private monopolies are bad, but monopolies enforced at the point of a gun, are just great!

In Canada, there is no monopoly. Health services are provided by a conglomerate of sources, many are private companies/hospitals/doctors, and the govt. just pays for it all using tax dollars, while also regulating prices. The biggest fear of monopolies is price fixing, and since the govt. foots the bill here, that isn't a concern.

Hired Mind wrote:

Canadians who profess that they're getting "better" health care with a nationalized health system are not paying attention. Do you realize that MRI waiting times are shorter for DOGS in Canada than they are for humans? Why is that?

You imply there is a direct link between a nationalized health system and long wait times, but that is in accurate. Your point 1 about baby boomers is happening here too, except they all get the health services they need instead of just the ones with insurance. That is one of the reasons we have a shortage of health care professionals, and as such some wait lines like MRI are long. That's a cherry picked item though, and most services aren't like that. Fixing it is the focus, and that will happen soon. I personally know 4 people who left their jobs to become doctors or nurses because of the shortage. The money is there to be had, thus an influx of resources are on their way.

Could be the video card. Do you think it was freezing on boot near where it changed from a text based screen to highres? Likewise with the xp install?

That's wishful thinking, but wrong. :)

As I understand it, costs are generally cheaper in Canada due to Federal regulation. For example, prescription drugs are substantially lower in Canada than the US. Cross-border purchasing has been estimated at $1 billion annually. (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/6/945?etoc[^])

I have no idea. Sure, I have to pay taxes, but if I needed a tetanus shot I'd walk in, receive it, walk out, and not receive any bills for it. I'm sure you are asking a trick question though, so go ahead and let me have it.

I keep getting beat up over the word free. I humbly retract it. We pay for our health care the same way we and you pay for paved roads, which is, yes, via taxes.

Joe Woodbury wrote:

Talks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. By definition, for him, the Canadian services were inadequate

I see you where you are coming from, but understand that's an insult to my country. Allow me to retort. As I see it, the only fact in your statement is synonymous with the following: for Canadian's who want the best surgeon on the continent and can afford to pay for him/her whatever the cost, the Canadian health care system might be (assuming the surgeon isn't in Canada) inadequate. What does that apply to, the top 0.01%? For the vast majority of Canadian's, 'inadequate' still isn't accurate. We do have great health services.

Joe Woodbury wrote:

To whit, not many Americans (or any nationality) are traveling to Canada for their vaunted health care expertise.

I wager not, probably a similar number to Canadian's going to the US. Considering the population difference (33 mil to 300 mil), that makes since as we are bound to have less 'best on the continent' surgeons. However, when a wealthy American finds out the best surgeon he can get is in Toronto, 9 times out of 10 that's where he goes. And again, why wouldn't he?

Yes, nothing in life is free, I'm aware of the cliche, and not immune to the long arm of the tax collector. However, it's confusiong to most to state it in a way other than 'free'. I agree though, free is inaccurate. Socialized health care? As you pointed out, also inaccurate. Maybe a conglomerate of public and private industries subsidized or completely paid for by govt using Canadian tax dollars.

You are implying Danny went to the US due to inadequate services, and that is inaccurate. I happen to be from Newfoundland and Labrador, so I know that story well. Danny could have received the surgery here for free. However, he consulted with Canadian doctors who told him the most experienced people are in Miami, so that's where he went. In Canada we get free health service, plus the benefit of buying whatever cutting edge services or higher levels of experience the US has to offer, if one can afford it. Danny can. Was that necessary? Certainly not, but most of us would take advantage of the best surgeons if money wasn't an obstacle.

We don't have those problems in Canada, because health care is free. I can't imagine why people would trust for-profit corporations to run critical services such as health care? Obama seems to get it. Every 1st world country except USA seems to get it. Not to turn this into a heavy political debate, but from a distance, it seems quite unintelligent that people are fighting him on it.

Your problem sounds more like a competency issue than a title/role issue. But first, as a development manager, I'll answer your question directly. It sounds like your project has about 5 people, maybe 3 of which are programmers. Going with just those numbers (without salary constraints) I think I'd personally hire one experienced software architect, 3 star programmers, and 1 entry level programmer. Basic project management of a project this small can and should be handled by an existing manager or executive, or even an existing project manager if one exists. There's no need to waste salary money (a lot of it by the sounds of your post) on a full time position. Also, I don't like the term designer because it implies a lack of programming skill. If by designer you meant software architect (someone who has spent maybe 10+ years programming and now, as a result, can engineer solid software design) then we are on the same page. Whoever is project managing should present the project requirements (and a client contact number) to the architect who should lay out the basic project design and rough schedule. The programmers can be brought in when s/he has a handle on the project and there are areas ready for development. With basic guidelines from the architect (guru), your star programmers (very talented) can handle most of the work, with the architect building only highly complex or high traffic systems, and guiding the design of the rest of the programmers. The one entry level programmer handles the mundane/repetative work that would be a waste of time for senior developers. (I don't believe in using entry level programmers for anything except a senior gopher. If you do otherwise, too many times the work is sub par and/or has to be rewritten.) Now back to your scenario. It shoulds like you can't change anything at current, the structure is already in place. As such, let me mention that I believe the team you have 'could' work, but you seem to be implying that the upper two hires (PM and designer) are not laying out a project that the programmers believe in, and they are not listening to advice from the programmers on how to improve it. My advice to you is to foster communication. Keep in mind that the designer and PM may be intimidated by the programmers at this point and as such may be standoffish. At the risk of being off base here due to lack of information about your situation, I think I'd try a very low emotion, highly professional board room meeting that lays out existing issues the programmers have identifie