Windows-Mac Disparities

Post Reply New Topic

Despite the fact that Macs are becoming more popular, why is the vast majority of software only available for Windows, with no Mac versions available for the same software?

Mac's still only account for a very small percentage of the market. Also apple don't exactly make it easy for people to port their products over to macs. There's a link somewhere with one of steam's executive's saying that apple pretty much just push companies away.

Nowadays Mac hardware is the same as a PC so you can load any PC OS and run any software on them. You can even run it concurrent with Mac OS X.

Now fixing Mac OS X to run on any other PC is another question but with the right Hardware it is possible although almost certainly contravenes Apple's licensing.

Macs still have a very small market share (and they always will- this is part of Apple's business model). Any Mac user who really needs to run some Windows-only application can use Boot Camp, Parallels, or Virtualbox to do so, so there is less financial incentive for software developers to port their apps over to OSX (a difficult and costly process, as Windows and OSX act very differently from each other) when the end user can just load up Windows on their Mac. But aside from games and a few specialty programs, most stuff that runs on Windows either has a Mac version or there is another program that accomplishes the same thing.

By the way, as a Linux user I have access to a larger software library than you have in OSX, despite Linux's even lower market share. Neener neener.

Most programs on Windows have counterparts on OS X. For example, there are multiple office programs, email programs, browsers, file sharing programs, media editing and playback programs available for OS X.

A vast majority of the most-common programs on Windows are also released for OS X. For example, Microsoft offers Mac versions of almost all of their programs, as does Adobe, as do Mozilla, and Opera, and Google. The larger number of available programs on Windows is largely because of redundant programs; there may be dozens of different programs for any given purpose, whereas on OS X there may be only a few.

Games especially are more common on Windows. Microsoft has had over 80% marketshare since before OS X was released. OS X's marketshare is around 10% or less. Software companies want to make money, and when choosing which operating systems to develop for, they are likely to choose the ones with the biggest number of users. If there are over eight times as many Windows users as Mac users then if the same game is released on Windows and OS X then the Windows version is likely to be sold many times as much as the Mac version. Since all modern Macs can also run Windows, games developed for Windows can be run on any recent computer(as long as Windows is installed on it), while games developed for OS X can only be run on Macs(or cracked installations of OS X).

As for software availability, as a Mac user I have access to all Mac software, almost all Windows software(through dual booting or using virtualization like VMWare or Parallels), and almost all software that would run on GNU/Linux(through dual booting or using virtualization like VMWare or Parallels or in a similar method to what would be used on GNU/Linux, using X11[which is part of OS X] and running directly within OS X). Linux-based software is also often available through the Fink and MacPorts package managers. Installing programs using Fink or MacPorts is similar to installing programs using the debian package manager dpkg.

In contrast, OS X won't run in virtualization software without cracks.

Not really... I've attempted to use both of those projects, and they're both a bit of a mess. Nothing at all like the power and elegance of Debian package management. I have gotten one useful program from Macports, but it's an outdated version and doesn't work that well. Oh, and Apple's version of X11 sucks quite badly.

But yeah, aside from gaming you can mostly get the software you need for OSX, and if that fails you can always multiboot or virtualize to get other operating systems on a Mac. Still, the virtualization and multibooting take you away from OSX, which for most people is the biggest reason to use a Mac.

Only if you are using a mac for it's actual hardware... most mac users are simply signing on to the brand name, nothing more...

Some people seem to forget that for 22 years, Macs WERE not the same hardware. Since they only started using Intel based hardware in 2006, there are considerably more NON-Intel Macs out there, than there are. Not everyone that uses a Mac is using an Intel Mac.

True, but most Macs still being actively used are probably Intel Macs. Apple is completely dropping PPC support as of this fall, and that leaves owners of old PowerPC Macs either running an ancient Mac OS (as you do) or running Linux (as I do).

OS X 10.5 runs on PowerPC. I can't imagine that being considered "ancient".

As a Mac user and someone who has talked with other long-term Mac users that statement seems completely incorrect.

I (and Mac users I've spoken with) use Macs for the software: the operating system itself and the consistency of the programs that run on it. The original Mac OS and the programs that ran on it had very similar very consistent interfaces with similar menus and similar controls. The current Mac OS (Mac OS X), and the programs that run on it are are similarly consistent. While a random selection of Windows programs are likely to behave in very different ways and have very different interfaces, Mac programs tend to look alike, behave alike, and have similar controls.

I do have VMWare installed, but I rarely use it on my own computer(less than once per month).

From what I've seen people who use computers only for brand names are likely to select Microsoft products, like Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office, either because those are the most popular products or because they aren't familiar with any others.

As a lifelong Mac user from a family of all Mac users, and a college student, I can tell you that this is largely not true.

The majority of Mac users fall into three categories:
1) Anti-Microsoft folks (like my dad, which is why the whole family has always used Macs). These people could alternately end up as Linux geeks.
2) People who happen to like it for legitimate reasons or just as a matter of personal preference (I'd count you in here). Some of these buy it because Apple computers are well-put-together machines with high-quality, perfectly matched hardware, some because they like the software that runs on it.
3) People who buy it because it's "cool." These people have next to no idea what difference there is between it and Windows.

On my university campus, group 3 is by far the largest, and the student market is one of Apple's main niches. Most of the Mac users I know on campus are utterly incompetent. They don't know how to use anything more than the absolute most basic features of OS X. They are completely unaware of the existence of Exposé, Spaces, or even the touch sensitivity of the trackpad (two-fingered scrolling, tap to click, tap two fingers for right click). These people just bought it for the brand, as the metallic amphibian said.


Not always- when you get into third-party programs, the interfaces do vary considerably. And all bets are off if you need to run an X11 app.

I agree with you about the division of groups, but I don't think that group three is the largest. They may just be the most visible at colleges. From what I have seen it seems that group two is the largest.

But it is possible my own perception is biased since for almost a decade I have been involved in running Mac discussion forums at three different sites.

X11-based applications are generally not developed for OS X first. They're usually ported from other operating systems, and in that case you are correct. Many X11-based apps have drastically different interfaces.

To give one example of consistency, OS X applications are likely to have similar menu structures.

The first menu at the top of the screen is always the apple menu, where system-related commands appear(like Shut Down and Log Out).

The second menu is the application menu, where application-related commands appear(like Quit, Preferences, and Check For Updates).

The third, fourth and fifth menus are usually File, Edit, and View, for dealing with opening and saving files, modifying the current file or changing what is currently being displayed.

Other application-specific menus may follow. The last menu is always the Help menu.

This same menu structure is used by Safari, iTunes, OS X Mail, Opera, VMWare, Limewire, Azureus, Quicktime, the Microsoft Office programs for the Mac, the iWork applications(Apple's office apps), image-editing programs like Photoshop, and most other popular Mac apps.

By comparison, in Windows, the menu structures often change. Although Microsoft used to use similar menu organization to what OS X uses, even Microsoft itself is inconsistent in their use of menus. In Internet Explorer, Microsoft has decided to hide the menus by default. In Google Chrome, there is only one menu, on the right side, and it has no label. In Microsoft Word, there is one menu, on the left side, but it doesn't look like a menu, and it contains everything that would have previously been in menus at the top of the window. Windows Media Player may have menus or may not, depending on the version. Things like applications' preferences may be named things like "Options" or "Preferences", and often appear under different menus(like help, edit, or options), or are left out of the menus at all, and sometimes appear as buttons.

Those would be Mac enthusiasts, who obviously would be more likely to fall into group two (or perhaps group one).


Aqua-based applications are generally not developed for OS X first. Apple's implementation of X11 really just feels incredibly sloppy to me, and it's very difficult to get anything useful out of it.


I'm not a Windows user though. The GNOME Human Interface Guidelines establish a pretty high degree of consistency on what is probably the most popular Linux GUI, while still allowing more flexibility than exists in Apple's Aqua/Cocoa interface. I've generally found the most popular Linux apps to be fairly intuitive. So the "preferences" settings aren't in the exact same spot in every program- no big deal. I can easily enough find what I need to change, and some configuration options in OS X are hidden in strange places or just plain inaccessible. I am a big fan of "Secrets," the extra preferences pane, but OS X is still very inflexible.

Also, I do actually like the Ribbon UI that MS introduced in Office 2007. I find the tabbing interface very innovative. That said, I don't use Windows and Wine isn't always reliable, so I typically just use OpenOffice or Abiword. Abiword is my favorite, but the Mac version is a mess.

It's the same thing where I go... at least of the mac users, most of those types don't even know of some of the cool things osx has to offer. I'm not saying Apple market's a bad product (to the contrary, it's the most well-polished product out there), but it's their primary targeted demographic that I'm talking about. You need not be in this demographic to buy or use a mac, but most of the people that do use a mac are, in fact, largely oblivious...

As for consistency, it's as orwell said: as soon as you go into third party, the consistency goes out the window...

I've been running OS X lately. It's not a bad interface, so long as I have Quicksilver to navigate for me. But as far as consistency, I noticed something while looking around my system to make sure my software hadn't fallen into obsolescence: there is no consistent, uniform update mechanism. Some applications put "check for updates" under "tools" or "help." Others put it under the main application menu (over on the left). Some applications simply do not have a built-in update mechanism, requiring the user to periodically check the vendor's website and download and reinstall at each new release. In Debian and derived distributions, I open a terminal, gain root privileges, and type "aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade" and all installed applications upgrade to the most recent available version. This lack of a central, integrated method of managing installed software is a shortcoming of both Windows and OS X.

OS X is a very nice system. On technical grounds, it is certainly one of the best options available, and it has a nice, polished interface. But there are some places where it doesn't fit my preferences, and it is hard to bend it to my will. I don't think it will ever expand beyond its current niche market, for a variety of reasons, but that does not diminish its usefulness for those who do like it. Linux remains vibrant even with considerably lower market share than OS X, and BSD seems content with its current status as statistical noise. Lesson: there are choices. Use what you like. My main annoyance is when one choice makes interoperability with the others unnecessarily difficult.