2 ms·

I don't think it makes sense to compare Windows and OSX and say that OSX lost because it was less open. By the time OSX came around Windows had been a monopoly

I don't think it makes sense to compare Windows and OSX and say that OSX lost because it was less open. By the time OSX came around Windows had been a monopoly for some time. OSX hasn't gotten any more open over time (probably less so, in fact) but its market share has gone up and Apple is now worth more as a company than Microsoft - so who's lost there?

protomyth 15y ago
I really doesn't make sense to compare OS X versus Windows given the history of both parts of OS X (OpenStep and Mac OS). Mac OS was available on clones and didn't expand the market at all. OpenStep was available on multiple platforms from multiple vendors. Neither gained market share. To be fair about it, 1984 was a little too late in the game as the C64 was losing share, Apple was already pretty low (both II and Mac), and Microsoft already had a hefty advantage [1]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5 http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5
astine 15y ago
I'm fairly certain the grandparent meant MacOS for which the explanation would make sense. Dos and Windows were more widely available and could run more software because of Microsoft's comparatively open business model.
blinkingled 15y ago
We are talking ubiquity here. And relative openness. Windows 7/Vista/XP are ubiquitous OSes that are more open (put it on any piece of hardware you want as long as it is x86{_64} etc.). Mac OS and OS X were open - but locked down to hardware. Both Mac OS and OS X were and are less ubiquitous (i.e. 5% market share vs. 95% for Windows for a long time now) than any version of Windows. Apple making more money or Steve Ballmer's whims are not the contentions here - ubiquity of products is.
- archangel_one 15y ago
  No, sorry, I wasn't talking about ubiquity - I don't disagree that OSX runs on less hardware than Windows. I simply didn't think it made sense to say that OSX had "lost" since it had very little market share at first and has grown a lot (I also disagree it's been holding steady at 5% for a long time), whereas Windows started out as a monopoly with nearly 100% and has declined somewhat since. That doesn't sound like any definition of "lost" I've ever heard. If you want to include classic MacOS as well, I'd tend to agree more, but originally you just said OSX.

protomyth 15y ago

I really doesn't make sense to compare OS X versus Windows given the history of both parts of OS X (OpenStep and Mac OS). Mac OS was available on clones and didn't expand the market at all. OpenStep was available on multiple platforms from multiple vendors. Neither gained market share. To be fair about it, 1984 was a little too late in the game as the C64 was losing share, Apple was already pretty low (both II and Mac), and Microsoft already had a hefty advantage [1]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5 http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5

astine 15y ago

I'm fairly certain the grandparent meant MacOS for which the explanation would make sense. Dos and Windows were more widely available and could run more software because of Microsoft's comparatively open business model.

blinkingled 15y ago

We are talking ubiquity here. And relative openness. Windows 7/Vista/XP are ubiquitous OSes that are more open (put it on any piece of hardware you want as long as it is x86{_64} etc.). Mac OS and OS X were open - but locked down to hardware. Both Mac OS and OS X were and are less ubiquitous (i.e. 5% market share vs. 95% for Windows for a long time now) than any version of Windows. Apple making more money or Steve Ballmer's whims are not the contentions here - ubiquity of products is.

archangel_one 15y ago
No, sorry, I wasn't talking about ubiquity - I don't disagree that OSX runs on less hardware than Windows. I simply didn't think it made sense to say that OSX had "lost" since it had very little market share at first and has grown a lot (I also disagree it's been holding steady at 5% for a long time), whereas Windows started out as a monopoly with nearly 100% and has declined somewhat since. That doesn't sound like any definition of "lost" I've ever heard. If you want to include classic MacOS as well, I'd tend to agree more, but originally you just said OSX.