I heard this week that Apple has surpassed Microsoft's market value so I'm going to use the occasion to share my perspective on the long standing Mac versus PC debate.

First, if you are still reading this after that intro I consider you a pretty hardcore geek. You, of all people, will understand that other designers are often surprised to hear that I am, primarily, a user of the Windows operating system. I started using computers in the mid 1980s-I worked with both IBM PCs and Apple computers early on but switched primarily to PCs when the company I worked for began doing projects for IBM.

As the battle played out in the design profession, Windows was a lonely place to be. I think the primary reason the Mac system captured the graphic design market was because, in those first years, a Mac system running QuarkXPress had superior type handling capabilities. That seems like a minor detail today, but back then it was critically important.

Before the introduction of desktop publishing software and digital typesetting, the process of working with type involved a good deal of craft. It was not unusual for a designer to spend hours pasting down sheets of type on a board and then cutting and repositioning individual words, even letters, until it looked right to their eye. (The same process is accomplished today by building complex collections of kerning pairs into a typeface design.) In any case, Apple won the lion's share of the graphic design market early on-an advantage they maintain even today.

I guess it was my rebellious nature that kept me in the Windows camp-most of my peers were using MACs but it seemed rather heavy-handed of Apple not to allow others access to its operating system the way Microsoft did. (I've always found it funny that the public perception was exactly opposite.) In any case, in hindsight, my reasoning sounds as silly as that of those who thought they were rebels for using a MAC.

The question of what system to use, to me, became moot 10 or 15 years ago. In the early days Quark and Aldus PageMaker (later Adobe) developed version updates first for the MAC and second for Windows. I really thought the tide had turned when most developers began releasing new versions simultaneously. In any case, for the last decade-plus, the user interface of the primary publishing and design software has worked almost identically on both platforms.

All that said, my next primary system will be a Mac. Why? Three reasons:

First, I received an iPod Touch as a gift and I have since purchased a iPhone. It is the single most elegant computer device I have ever used-the user interface makes it a joy to use. Any company that can make that device, is headed in the direction I want to go.

Second, the MAC now runs both operating systems simultaneously-and from what I understand-pretty reliably. Running both systems is useful when you are designing web sites, templates, and such.

Third, and more importantly, I think Microsoft may be headed in the wrong direction. If you ever used Office 2007 you know what I'm talking about. Microsoft has chosen the "complexity" path-the cram-everything-you-can-possibly-cram-into-the-software path. The be-all-things-to-all-people road. Apple, on the other hand, seems to be trying to create more complex devices that are easier to use.

To my way of thinking, we have entered into an era when, instead of being its own vocation, computer use (for many of us) has simply become an integral part of everyday life. And in that type of world, if you don't make features intuitive and accessible, you may as well not make the features at all.

I'm guessing the organizations that make devices and processes accessible will win out-and at this time in history, that looks like Apple.