You’ve probably heard the old claim that Macs are preferred by graphic designers and desktop publishers. It’s often dismissed as a fanboy statement being totally without merit, but I came across an article which could very well explain the reason behind this old myth. It would seem that Mac OS X renders fonts properly, staying true to the design of the typeface, whereas Windows manipulates them so they better fit the pixel grid, which apparently results in sharper text.

The difference became more obvious recently, when I installed Safari for Windows. I have always thought that Arial on Mac looked much smoother and rounder, and I found it easier to read. Observe the difference below. Top: Windows with ClearType; Bottom: Safari with medium font smoothing (default).

Now it may just be personal taste, but when I’m trawling through RSS feeds, I’d rather stare at the bottom rendering for hours. It might be a bit blurrier, but who ever said sharpness was the holy grail of on-screen reading? The Safari rendering is easier on the eyes (softer, if you will) and much faster to read. In comparison, the Windows rendering looks awkwardly spaced and horizontally condensed, with circular letters appearing oval-shaped.

The obvious consequence of all this is that on a Mac, the on-screen rendering of a document is a more accurate representation of the printed product. If there is any truth to the “Macs are better for publishing” myth, I suspect this is a major contributor.