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.
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.
