I am sorry to say, but prizrak and tomwell: You are very mistaken. In any case, at the least, you are taking your own assumptions about how things might have been and stating it as fact, in the process ignoring some very key facts and evidence.
First off, Apple is primarily a hardware company, though they churn out substantial quality software titles as well. But this is primarily to sell their hardware. You cannot directly compare Microsoft, a primarily software company (in the computer industry), to Apple.
Your main claim is that if Apple would have gotten to the dominant position that Microsoft is now, Apple would be just as bad. You refer to Gates and Jobs. First off, let me tell you that neither of these men are among my favorite people. The real hero of the story to me is Steve Wozniak.
But, either way, there is a key difference between these two men. They are both business men, but Gates is not an artist. Jobs is. Or at least, he is the one who directs the artists; The one with a vision. Gates has little vision but the way to get more green paper. Now, I'm not saying Jobs is this magical mystical guy, but he has a vision that powers his work, beyond the money. He is passionate about what Apple creates and it shows in the products. You may dismiss this as nonsense, as a non-factor, but I think it is a very important difference in the two companies' philosophies.
Now you claim that if Apple had "won" and gotten to M$'s status, we'd all be forced to use proprietary hardware, and in fact, Microsoft is the "savior" which has liberated us from a would be Apple monopoly, and given us an open platform. This is really absurd.
First off, Microsoft was not the one to give us an open, standard platform. It was IBM. Or was it? Do you think IBM intended to create an "open-platform" (as in open-source)? No!! IBM came out with simple hardware in order to compete with Apple (and others) and with the hopes that other manufacturers could easily, and would, make add ons for it. But IBM's design was so simple to copy that it was copied-- and copied, and copied. IBM didn't hand this out out of the goodness of their corporate heart. IBM's design was copied, plain and simple. IBM DID NOT seek out to create what you call an open-platform, it just turned out that way.
Secondly, Microsoft had little say in what hardware the industry would settle on (or for, given its historical limitations). So, M$ had nothing to do with the x86 platform. M$ only made an (or rather, many) OS for it. It became the dominant OS for a variety of reasons, one being the unethical way in which M$ suppressed, tricked and bought out all its rivals.
Even MS DOS, was not really MS DOS. It was another companies' DOS that MS made minor changes to and re-branded as MS DOS. Even in those days MS was playing dirty, locking other DOS systems out. Then Windows. Microsoft has continued to lock out other OSs. Linux, BeOS, etc.. you name it, have been unfairly, unethically blocked from being pre-loaded and sold by hardware makers who have a Windows license.
In addition, this OS has on many occasions found to have a preference against competing software (such as Netscape). It is an OS with is NOT open, an OS that SPIES on its users and contains ZERO Open-Source. This is a company that has gone out of its way to unfairly discredit Open-Source by all means available at its disposal, even claiming that Open-Source software helps terrorists.
So, tell me again please, just HOW has M$ liberated you? It certainly hasn't liberated me or any people I know. Microsoft merely expertly took advantage of the situation; It cheated and played its cards right. It is thanks to Microsoft that most other commercial operating systems have failed. Microsoft has denied the people the opportunity for something better. It has caused stagnation in the industry, in my view. What monopoly doesn't cause stagnation? Even now, Linux is not as used as it could be-- It is not in the hands of as many people as it could be. Simply because of Microsoft.
The only reason that Open-Source continues and prevails is that is not contained, like a single commercial product. This is why Microsoft can't snuff it out, can't fight it, or exhaust its resources. There are just too many people around the world developing for it. This is why Linux and Open-Source is our best bet against Microsoft.
Now, had Apple gotten to M$'s market share, as is Apple's business model, it would have never become a Microsoft, simply because the it is a hardware company. I don't think Apple would have had the opportunity (if even the desire) to exploit and abuse others the way Microsoft has, simply because of the differences in business models. In fact, I don't think Apple could have gotten to that level of market share. I'll tell you what I think would have happened:
At some point, another company would have come along. Maybe it would have been the Amiga, or another unknown company. And, eventually the market would have split. Apple could not have used the same dirty strategies that M$ employed because the Macintosh hardware must be made by Apple. Even with licensees, Apple could have dictated terms on Mac-compatibles, but not on other hardware (which is clearly unrelated). Eventually, there would have been two or four major platforms, and perhaps Open-Source would have taken off on one or all of them.
Of course, this is speculation. But, let's look at what Apple has really done today. The Mac, so far, has no truly invasive DRM (I'm sorry, but the iTunes DRM is probably the least offensive out there, even though I don't support any DRM.-- The Mac does not "call home" or spy on you, as XP does), partially Open-Source, and includes many of the (types of) apps that you must pay for separately on Windows.
Apple's iPod sales may be booming today, but it is clearly because of the Mac that Apple has survived. Apple IS primarily a hardware/computer company, and makes its profits off of hardware. It is ridiculous to me that you would "praise" in way way or another that company/OS that has, as blueturtl rightfully put it, enslaved the PC industry while you criticize the company that that has incorporated and, in large part, embraced Open-Source solutions.
The Classic Mac OS was a dependable system for its time. I never had even a fraction of the problems my Windows using friends had at that time. Only around Mac OS 8 and 9 did it become a little long in the tooth, and yes, Apple needed to migrate to more modern technology.
As for Aqua being Open-Source.... If Mac OS X is just BSD with a nice face, why do you care so much about Aqua? The fact is, the Open-Source community had PLENTY of time to come up with something like, or even better than, Aqua and yet it did not; It had to wait YEARS for Apple to come by and do it. Now, I have mentioned various times throughout this article that Apple is a hardware company, and its software is made to complement and enhance its hardware offerings/sales.
Apple worked hard to create Aqua. If it were to simply "give it away" it would lose its advantage, few people would buy Macs and Apple would suffer, probably even close shop eventually. So why would Apple shoot itself in the foot and give away its advantage for free? As far as compatibility, Apple doesn't restrict you from booting another OS. Ubunutu runs on the Mac. And, Apple has said, that Windows and any other x86 compatible system won't be specifically restricted in any form from booting on x86 Macs. So much for the monopoly theory, eh?