Macs Better At Design: A Myth?

The only reason the myth of Macs (yes, it’s a myth) being better at “design” things exists is because as we all know, the Apple corporation was the first to make real headway in the personal computing market. They were the first to introduce a GUI that anyone recognized (though technically the Xerox Alto was the first to have a GUI, but the “Macintosh” introduced in 1984 was the first real commercial success), and programs/software that actually looked somewhat nice. That is to say, it was not monochromatic green text on a black screen. Back then (we’re talking like circa the early 80’s), if you wanted to compute and make things, you pretty much had basic drawing applications, and lame attempts at “desktop publishing” on Apple computers (see also: MacPaint), and essentially number computing and mathematical calculating on IBM PC’s.

Though to be truthful “PC” means personal computer, so technically pretty much any computer you can buy (IBM PC or Mac) is a PC. But whatever, I’ll just call the one Mac and the other IBM PC to avoid confusion.

Anyway, due to this initial distinction between IBM PC’s as data-number-financial-etc machines, and Mac’s as pretty-functional-fun-designerly-etc machines, it was assumed that Mac’s were for fun, creative people making pretty things like design and art, and IBM PC’s were for stodgy accountants that needed to compile sales figures. It is that distinction, made in the 1980’s mind you, that makes up the entire basis of the “Macs are better at design than IBM PCs” argument that we hear so often today. Just look at the recent Mac ads: Cool young guy who says “Dude” a lot represents Mac, old accountant-looking guy with nasal voice represents an IBM PC. Wow, brilliant marketing. Let’s face it, if you’re a graphic designer for a living, and you’re debating what OS will make you cooler with the ladies, you’re a geek anyway, who really cares what logo is on your laptop’s cover.

But beyond that, let’s me go on as to just why it’s such an inaccurate statement. With the introduction of Windows in 1985, the Macintosh was no longer the only “pretty” looking computer. Naturally more software cropped up, and both machines had the capabilities to do the same things; and so the race to dominate the market began. Ultimately Microsoft and Windows won out, as is known by their much larger market share, both then and now, but let’s get to how this affects design.

Back then, you had things like MacPaint (Mac) and MSPaint (IBM PC); the clear distinction being that the program you were drawing stuff in was created by the maker of the operating system. If you preferred MacPaint you probably liked Macs and if you liked MSPaint you probably liked IBM PCs, that’s a no-brainer. But today, you’re not using Microsoft Photoshop, and Apple Photoshop; you’re using Adobe Photoshop, for Mac, or for IBM PC. Point being, the people writing the code for the programs is Adobe, not Microsoft and not Apple; therefore the means of your creation of design-related things is created by one fundamental party: Adobe. So obviously, no machine, Mac or IBM PC can claim they do design better, because they’re both using the same code. There are not Mac-specific filters in Photoshop that aren’t on IBM PCs, and likewise there aren’t IBM PC-specific functions that aren’t on Macs. Of course there are differentiations in plug-ins and scripts for either OS, but that’s not addressing the point, because when people talk about “Macs being better than IBM PCs at design” they’re definitely not saying that because they have a script for a Mac version of Photoshop that IBM PC users don’t have.

The main bias most people have when it comes to designing things is not actually about the design itself, but rather the package it comes in. Macs are notorious for sleek graphical interfaces with big bubbly icons, striped progress indicators, rounded buttons, and every other bell and whistle you can add to an OS; while IBM PCs and Windows (though this really isn’t the case anymore) we’re more functional looking with their neutral grays and somewhat boring looking interface. But those distinctions are courtesy of the Mac and Windows OS design teams, not the computers themselves.

That said, it’s like saying that because something comes in a cooler looking box that it’s automatically better. Say I gave you the choice of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a ziplock, or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a gold-plated box. Obviously you’d take the gold-plated box, but would the sandwich taste any better? No, it wouldn’t. So, by saying that Macs do design-things better, you’re essentially saying that because the dialog button that tells you your file copying looks better on a Mac (which is subjective), you’re saying that anything done on a Mac looks better than anything done on an IBM PC. Sorry, that’s just faulty logic. Not to mention that the thing that makes good design is not the software you use, or the machine you’re running, it’s the designer designing it.

If I use the top of the line MacBook and the newest version of Photoshop, but I still use a yellow-to-purple gradient for a background and put lens-flares everywhere, and I go up against Mike Young using an IBM PC that barely runs Photoshop 7 in a design contest, I’m going to get my ass handed to me. Sure it might take him a little longer to make his, with loading times and all, but it’d be nonetheless a better product even if it took longer. So, that being the case, the only difference would be processing time, and any modern computer with a decent chunk of memory, be it Mac or IBM PC, is going to run Photoshop just fine.

So I’ll move on; surely there must be things that one machine can do better than the other can, or even things one can do that other can’t even attempt, right? Sorry, wrong again. If you’re designing things professionally, you’re using Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Flash, or Dreamweaver, all a family of now Adobe products (see above about both machines using the same programs). Anyone who says their company uses Paint Shop Pro or Freehand to professionally run a business is kidding themselves. So, that in mind, it again boils down to the person making the designs, not the machine their using. If you’re using CS3 on an IBM PC or on a Mac, you’re still using CS3. Does a PDF exported from InDesign on a Mac open faster, look better, or out perform a PDF from an IBM PC in any way? Nope. Hence why you can open an InDesign file on an IBM PC or on a Mac (given the software versions are the same), and get the same product.

Ultimately then, it comes down to productivity. If you have the same designer doing the same project on a Mac or on an IBM PC, you’re going to get the same result. Only difference being how they went about making it. That said, I’ll explore the differences I’ve noticed between working on either OS, as I work on a IBM PC at home, and a Mac at work (both doing design mind you).

File Browsing

On a Mac, say you’re browsing for a file (in OSX), you have to use that weird side-by-side paneled browsing system in Finder if you want to have any idea of where you’re at in your file structure (the other options being the mode where folders just float where they were placed, and can overlap and be off-screen (horrible idea), or the structure where you only see the contents of the folder and it’s info, like date modified and size, you’re in at a time (and can easily get lost within a tree of subfolders). So, in using that side-by-side paneled thing, going even remotely deep into a file system organized by clients or projects (which designers do all the time), you find yourself constantly expanding the little columns, only to find you’ve run out of screen space, so you have to move the window over off the left side of the screen to see deeper into folders. Then, once you’ve found your file, if you click on it to open, it doesn’t just open, it attempts to preview it in yet another panel to the right, which is a nightmare for progressively scanning a file upwards of 60 Mb, which is common is designing things, before it opens, because it takes forever. Then once you’re done with the window you have to slide it back over to close it, as the close buttons are in the upper left of the window (which you moved off-screen to get more space).

All that versus Windows, where you can simply set the view mode to “details” where you can see all the sub-folders in a standardized tree with “+” signs next to them to expand if you want to see more, all the file’s details (date modified, size, etc) in the same screen, and it doesn’t attempt to preview it and chug for an hour unless you ask it to. Needless to say, anyone who knows how to fundamentally work on either OS, and can go search for a file will have substantially less trouble doing so on Windows.

Another thing of note is all those damn ._ files that Macs generate for every file on the system. Sure, they don’t show up on Macs, like Windows system files don’t show up on Windows (unless you unhide them), but copy a bunch of files from a Mac to a IBM PC, and you get all these grayed out 1 or 0k ._ files that clutter everything up. Quite annoying.

Window Functionality in General

On a Mac, one of the staples of the OS is that all the windows for applications sort of float around on their own, and can be seen through each other’s empty spots. So say you have Photoshop open with a design you’re working on, and your mail open too. In the area between your Photoshop document and the layers palette, you can see mail running behind it. Sure you can achieve the same effect in Windows by not maximizing your applications and lining them up next to each other, but 1.) that’s not a good use of desktop real estate, 2.) it’s cluttered, and 3.) you have a bar at the bottom that tells you what program you’re in, you needn’t cram everything you do onto one screen.

Working on a Mac (unless you meticulously minimize and re-open your applications every time you switch between them) means you’re going to be seeing more than you need to, frequently un-related crap all the time. It’s like when you see an athlete shooting free-throws go up to the line, and the people in the seats behind the backboard wave those white rubber things all over to distract him. It’s annoying. Sure you can try to block it out mentally, but why the extra effort? Computers are supposed to be helping you do things efficiently, not mindfuck you by having you accidentally read a client’s email response when trying to edit copy in InDesign. So once again, I’d have to say the neutral gray behind all my Windows versions of Photoshop and Illustrator, though somewhat drab, keep things a lot easier to organize when messing in multiple applications, which designers do all the time. Not to mention accidentally clicking out of Photoshop, into an Illustrator document behind it (which would only happen on a Mac) is not only frustrating, but can lead to a rather long waiting period where your computer chugs to switch between applications.

Dragging and Dropping

Doing so between programs on Windows requires only dragging your item to the appropriate window in the start bar, waiting for it to switch applications, and dropping it where you want it. Have fun trying to do that with the dock system on Mac OSX. It’s almost like a game you play with your computer, hardly efficient. You may say this is trivial, but anyone who designs layouts and brochures and such on a daily basis knows and uses the drag and drop feature a lot.

Keyboard Shortcuts

These are the key (no pun intended) to being a productive designer, and admittedly, a lot of the key commands for a Mac are similar to those for a IBM PC, but frequently require you to either be triple-jointed, or have 8 fingers and an extra hand to pull off, by not having the keys you want/need to press anywhere near each other. Was it option, or alt. or the apple key, or wait, aren’t two of those the same key? Option, shift, apple key, plus N. aw screw it, just use the menus. Again, hardly productive.

There are of course other specific things that can help or hinder you in either OS, but I’ll stop there, as handling files, looking at your files, and interacting with you files pretty much covers what you’ll be doing as a designer. So there you have it. Does working on a Mac make your product any more visually stunning? Of course not. Does working on a Mac mean you’re a better designer than your peers? Of course not. And does working on a Mac mean you have access to better features than an IBM PC? Again, a resounding no.

If anything, at least in my experience, everything you routinely do on a Mac that involves designing things is actually hindered by the design of the OS (see above), making you in essence; a slower designer. Which, for anyone who’s ever worked at a company with budgets knows, is bad news.

A machine running a program to do things is just that, machine running a program. The quality of the design is dependent on the designer doing it, not what he uses. So the whole “Macs are better at designing things than IBM PCs” thing is rubbish. Both machines, especially running modern software, do the same thing, give you the same prompts, and give you the same output. There is no trade-off in quality here.

Plus, just as a side note: Anyone who uses there computer for designing things is probably going to use it for other things too, and I think it goes without saying that there are more program alternatives, easier ways to get those programs (stores, downloading, etc), more support for those programs (you don’t need a Mac guru, just ask anyone who knows anything about computers to help you), and generally a much better experience to be had using Windows, so long as you know what you’re doing (meaning you’re not a grandma that only checks email and browses cnn.com) you should have no problem. So though this review may seem biased, because anything written by a human can’t be objective, I hope I provided enough clear examples of just why I’m biased; it has reason. As someone who uses common sense, logic, and does design for a living (I’ve been a graphic designer and artist for many years), it’s kind of a slap in the face to say something as unsubstantiated as “Macs are better at design stuff,” because frankly, that’s obviously not true.