Talk:Apple Mac OS X vs Microsoft Windows

From WikiVS, the open comparison website

Contents 1 Freedom 2 Naming 3 Games 4 Open Source

[edit] Freedom

Freedom Many Linux users prefer Macs over PCs because of the Mac's UNIX architecture. i dont think this makes any sense, seeing that macs are locked down.

[edit] Naming

Shouldn't this be titled OS X vs Windows?

Good question, I just added a page OS X vs Windows.

I also agree that this should be a specific comparison between Apple's and Microsoft's OS; the term "PC" is generally thought to only include this dichotomy because the commercial world has not yet brought Linux into the thoughts and lives of average computer users, but that unfairly cuts out Linux and its distributions simply because the public is unaware of Linux; furthermore, if we already have a separate OS-X v. Windows comparison page, that would suggest even more that the term "PC" should encapsulate more than just the Apple-Microsoft pair, or else this will become a redundant page that should be linked to the primary one. yoseflevi 19:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Games

What about computer games?

I think this could be addressed in the Software section, maybe. 173.17.187.196 20:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source

"However, Macs are no more open source than Windows are"

Now that is just a big load of ..., many parts of the Mac OS X are open source

Well, that all depends on how you look at it. Yes, OSX is built on top of many open source components....but at the end of the day, as a complete package, it is proprietary software just as Windows is when talking about it as a whole. Can I download the source code for Cocoa or the Dock and modify it? Can I redistribute OSX freely? Darwin is open source, OSX is proprietary. --ZephyrXero 18:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Darwin is open source, and that's what actually runs every single component of Mac OS X and is responsible for making sure the computer actually boots up, so I think that should be factored in considering that's a pretty big part of computers... 173.17.187.196 20:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Darwin is a major component of OSX, but it still does not make OSX, as a whole open source. This article is about OSX, not just the Darwin kernel. --ZephyrXero 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make the whole thing open source, but it does make it more open source than Windows, which is not based off of any open source at all. In fact they avoid it like the plague.JordyD 01:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the discussion of just "how much" open-source OS X / Windows Vista or the soon-to-be Windows 7 is has been reduced to an almost meaningless or contrived comparison. When I think of why Linux might be better than Windows or Mac operating systems with respect to it being open-source, I think of the open-source community that follows Linux and the widespread productivity it has brought as a specific result of being open-source. In this frame of thought, and with respect to the above discussion, the degree of legal power or ownership any entity claims and exercises over its code certainly does factor into how open-source it is, as it effects the ability of the code to be used by other groups and it prevents the ability for open-source development communities to emerge from that code. Thus, I would not think that, based on the information in this discussion, neither OS X or Windows Vista can be fairly characterized as "open-source," nor do I think the comparison between the two as displayed above is meaningful due to the degree of legal power both Microsoft and Apple holds over their codes, especially since even those open-source components are so tightly interconnected to propriety, closed-sourced components of an operating system. What is the meaning of releasing source code when the legal protections one exercises over it are so stringent that it is almost as if it is closed-source? The only beneficiary to that code can be Apple. YosefLevi 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)