IN THE LATE 1980s, in the early days of what was then known as desktop publishing, you needed an Apple computer if you wanted to run the so ware that would enable you to take part in the communications revolution.
It became the norm for company computers to be split along partisan lines: Apple Macs for the designers, PCs for the accountants and clerical staff. And that just about covered the field; most other office workers still used typewriters.
As more and more copywriters, journalists and other creative writers started to see the benefit of working with words that could be not just written but processed, they too tended to choose Macs, because these machines were now seen as desirable, sexy, creative devices.
Today, the array of creative software, from Photoshop to Premiere to Cinema 4D, runs just as well on Windows as it does on Macs. So why do so many artists, thinkers and musicians still prefer Macs?
It’s a question that is frequently asked. Why pay more for a tool that does a job which could be carried out much more cheaply?
The answer, I believe, is that Macs simply look better. Both the hardware and so ware are vastly more attractive than their Windows counterparts.
People who care about what things look like use Macs.