Forum Posts Feed
Mac Envy
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Feb 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM
An interesting question, and one I’ve often wondered about.
While there are many more Windows computers than Macs, I’d guess that 90% or more of those are business computers where the operators have specific jobs that don’t require or even allow for “artisanal” software. Heck, most of those operators probably don’t even know that such software even exists. Whereas, someone buying a Mac has done so for a specific reason, most likely because they want to use one of those artisanal pieces of software. That’s why I switched… so I could get my hands on Scrivener and Tinderbox.
But, of course, there must be more to it than this. It must also be more difficult to make a profit developing for Windows. It is is either too hard to distribute your software, or too costly and time consuming to develop the app.
Steve Z.
Posted by xtabber
Feb 27, 2015 at 08:50 PM
Macs provide a visual environment designed to appeal to specific creative types, including writers, photographers and visual artists. Much of the software developed for the Mac is also designed to appeal to that market, but the Mac environment is woefully lacking in many other areas, notably with regard to managing large amounts of data and scripted batch operations. What you use depends on what you need to do.
I have had Macs and to be honest, Scrivener is probably the only program that might make me want to still own one if it were not available for Windows. dtSearch, Ultra Recall, FileLocator Pro and Where Is It are Windows-only. Also, many utilities that make my daily work easier are much nicer than anything I have seen on Macs—XYplorer, PriPrinter Pro and Treesize Pro, among them. At least Beyond Compare is finally available for the Mac.
But fancy tools don’t make the writer. John McPhee has relied for the past 25 years solely on Kedit, a port to DOS and then Windows, of the Xedit line-oriented editing environment on IBM mainframes.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/01/14/structure