Should Microsoft Windows Go Open-Source?
Posted 02/05/09 at 10:02:15 PM by David Murphy
Comments
Print
Email
Microsoft's Windows platforms need to be more like Linux if the software giant ever hopes to compete against open-source software, including operating systems. That's the claim being made by InformationWeek's Charles Babcock, who's taken a look at Microsoft's declining revenues for Windows clients and concluded that it's time to toss the operating system--which allegedly nets Microsoft $34 per Windows XP installation--to the open-source wolves.
According to Babcock, sales and licenses for applications like Microsoft Office are the real cash cow for Microsoft. But how might a free Microsoft Windows operating system ease the bloodletting--defections of customers to open-source solutions for all their computer interactions?
If anything, he suggests that the move to an open-source operating system would be a gesture of courtesy at best. As it stands, Microsoft no longer holds a proprietary grip on the market with its applications. Customers are free to choose from a plethora of other, more inexpensive options that offer the same functionality as, say, Microsoft Office: Google Docs, OpenOffice, Zoho, to name a few. Continuing the example, Microsoft no longer dominates with its file formats either--you can thank Open XML for that.
So what makes customers continue to adopt Microsoft's pricy solutions over open-source alternatives? Babcock doesn't have an answer for that one. But he does suggest that businesses are already considering hybrid open-source/Microsoft solutions to replace existing Microsoft-only platforms in an effort to curb costs during strenuous economic times. That's why Microsoft Windows needs to be free -- as a gesture of goodwill, but also as a means for making as much of a marketing and integrated push toward Microsoft applications as the company can muster. According to Babcock, applications are Microsoft makes its money: four to 12 times as much as its revenue from its operating systems.
The article goes on to discuss Microsoft's losses in the mobile and netbook spaces--familiar topics to anyone who's read these weekly open-source updates on Maximum PC. Babcock is predicting that Windows Mobile will be the first Microsoft OS to jump ship to an open-source model, given the rampant growth and expectations for its competitors: Apple's iPhone, as well as Google's open-source Android mobile operating system and an open-source variant of Nokia's Symbian.
Microsoft has been dabbling in open-source as of late, but more contributing to projects than revolutionizing its own core software. It's too early to tell whether these experiments are just that, or a precursor to a larger open push from Redmond. And it's not as if open-source hasn't hit its share of stumbling blocks as well. But the fact remains that open-source software is starting to fight for every inch of playing field--analogous to how Mozilla Firefox has steadily chipped away at Internet Explorer on the software front. Microsoft might not be ready to talk open-source come Windows 7, but Babcock's theory of a slow trickle of additional open-source functionality into future iterations of the Windows operating system is a possibility.
I don't think everyone read the article...
Submitted by Draeconix on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 2:35pm
As I read the posts associated with this article I got the feeling that many of you did not read the article closely enough. You seemed to miss and important statement: "According to Babcock, sales and licenses for applications like Microsoft Office are the real cash cow for Microsoft." To me Windows is really much more like a gaming console rather than a piece of software. Gaming consoles are known to loose money from the very begining. No console manufacture actually makes money selling the hardware. What they do make money on is the licensing fees from programmers and developers who want to make games for that console. The same can be said for an OS. MS is loosing money on Windows but making tons of money on its applications. Personally, I think every OS should be open source as long as there are standards to adhere to. I am sure MS could hold onto the licensing rights and still make Windows open source allowing them to continue to make money and thus improving the OS. I also think that CarmonaEnterprises makes a good point about MS keeping an enterprise client locked. The business sector is where MS is making its money. Businesses can, or at least used to be able to, afford the fees for on OS. The consumer can't anymore. A mass consumable Windows OS would be the best thing to happen to Windows since XP.
Submitted by jexeffectz on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 5:22pm
If windows ever went open source, it would lose much more revenue more rapidly. Unemployment in the US will rise, and the economy of the US will ultimately fall lower than it's predicted.
my 2 cents
Submitted by habuza on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 3:50pm
Go home.
The average computer user wants something that works when they turn it on. They want it to play their video games, they want it to work without them having to run an application through an API such as.. WINE or CeDEGA, for instance. I myself and an IT professional by trade, and I do this crap for a living, but I have windows at home on my PCs because I don't like to muck around with the same issues that plague the dozens , if not hundreds, of linux distros out there. There is far too much choice to pick from, and sure, it might be free. But I want something to work out of the box or "of-the-disc"
Now lets look at it
Submitted by Rule4Peace on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 9:41am
Now lets look at it realistically.
The reason why Microsoft makes so much money is windows. the only two things which do not depend on it are windows mobile(the failure) and the Xbox 360(the only good thing by them since XP)
34$ per OS means it's 60$ to make vista basic. so every time someone would download microsoft would loose money.
The reason linux works is that so many people work on it. Ubuntu for example owes it's simplicity from the demand made by windows users. I like not going thrue the command line each time I want to install something.
Microsoft can't go open source just because it would be imposible to make the same kind of OSs at that scale. If Vista was a flop just imagine if they didn't have money.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
MICROSOFT MUST AT LEAST HAVE IT SO IT DOESN'T LOOSE MONEY.
If it's 60$ to make then at least charge 60$ not 59.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Submitted by erolsipar on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 9:09am
Should life be open source nobody to work and people sleeping 24 hours and getting free stuff and money?
Come on please for sake. There should be a limited payment fee as about 20-50 dollars but for free isnt good. Think if your a company and your in this economical situation which is going further to worse and worse.
Now I remember why I stopped
Submitted by atomaweapon on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 7:52am
Now I remember why I stopped reading info week.
If I wanted open source, why wouldn't I just use linux? Why would MIcrosoft give away billions and billions of dollars for it's flagship product for free? "Open source" stuff is good for tech heads and people who like to "tinker". Do you think anybody's mom or dad is going to know where or how to dl Micorsoft's "Distro" of vista then install it on their pc?
The first two times I actually tried to install linux on an older emachine, it failed twice. Perhaps an isolated incident, but windows was running just fine. Who knows, maybe a hardware error.
Open source is cool and all, I got a tech buddy who loves to tout how his stuff is all free and it's so cool. When you start getting to apps that do more than type code, you start having issues. But bottom line is you have to be a tech pro to run this stuff and for it to be compatible with anything. Say what you will, but so far the masses have rejected open source and linux.
Submitted by bnrd120 on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 10:56am
Just because Windows becomes open source does not mean that the install of apps will be different. If Windows was open it would not be like linux; were any and every one can have their own and unique OS. Microsoft would make sure that everyone worked to one standard andonly one version of windows like, OpenOffice.org or Debian. You would still having the covenience of knowing that when you get software with the Windows logo, you can install it with just a click. Plus for the ones that are not able to go to the Microsoft site and download the OS it would still be available at stores.
Submitted by majorsuave on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 7:39am
MS Windows needs to become open source.
All those irritants that could be fixed. Different flavors of OS.
Of course, like major Linux OSes they should retain enterprise versions that are locked code and come with a dedicated exclusive support and a price.
Submitted by CarmonaEnterprises on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 1:05am
Microsoft going open source is like having all of the pharmacy companies giving away medications to all patients.. Not likely but here's a few ideas;
Microsoft should continue to create OS for large companies and of course provide the latest updates and security protection. Keep that source code locked from the general public and only the companies can provide materials to use the OS to its employees and out of the public.
Open the source code from, 95, 98, and ME and test the open source market with these codes and or create an open source OS specific to gamming and allow the gamming companies to make any tweaks to better the game and include the tweaks to the packaging to the game. If they feel confident with the open source market then perhaps release Windows 2000 or XP. They can even publish materials for the schools to teach like books and software.
As for the general public who just want a PC to work, continue to create a retail OS that people can buy at the stores or with the purchase of a new PC.
If planned right, Microsoft can have its cake and eat it too.
Jeff C
Submitted by festiva_man on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 12:59am
If windows went open source i wouldn't use it. If i wanted open source i would use linux. As it is i enjoy the simplicity and the gaming library from windows. People just want it to be free but most people never see the price tag as they get windows on their computer.
Submitted by bnrd120 on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 12:54am
Making Windows Open Source sounds like a great solution to Microsofts growing fight with other sowtware vendors. If Microsoft is willing to become serious about being in the business of selling online ads; opening their OS and intergratimg there Live Search into the OS sounds like a perfect answer. They can still make an optional Pay version (not to get an anti-trust suit by giving people a choice) that does not include the search. Theis would give them the upper hand against google that they have been looking for, At the same time putting almost an instant stop to linux. Killing two or three birds with one stone. Other services may still be pay to use eg: Windows Server, Microsoft Office.
Wow, that would have a lot of potential.
Submitted by Stry8993 on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 12:43am
With OpenAL, OpenCL, and DirectX11, say 12, being open-source, things would be a great commodity. I mean, everything people hate about Windows... could be rectified. The whole, "If you don't like it, change it," would be so every-day the phrase, "If you don't like it, deal with it." I oppose Apple's close-minded outlook on everything, except for when it has to bow down to cut costs eg. Intel Core 2/Duo's. But with Linux, I'm at odds sometimes with what the heck to do. I mean, it is so open, and customizable, that lits like looking at a monolithic box of gears knowing I can do what I want, but not knowing where to start. I know Windows XP/Vista/7 is going to play Crysis, and its going to play Half-Life 2: Episode *, and I know Linux can do it, but I'm never quite sure Linux is going to do it 100% without my direct intervention.
Make an OS Apple visually appealing, Microsoft Feature driven, Linux Open and Yours, and Firefox easy and effecient (RAM usage is shoddy, blah blah blah, shh! You get my point :P). I mean, they've made, and continute to make it simple to add add-ons. Bring it all together, and there shouldn't be a reason why you can't, and you've got the world at your finger tips.
Submitted by Zoomer on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 9:47pm
If they made windows open source, linux would tank. Not that I have anything against linux, but that would mean that as people got their hands on the code, it would be constantly improving....as linux basically is. Better stability, compatability, and you could use the money saved on the OS to buy between 2-6 games, depending on the version you would have actually spent money on. Win-Win for the consumer.....of course, Linux doesn't make much money anyway, and people would still use them because that's what their used to, but whatever. Open source Windows would still be awesome. ^_________^
Submitted by MarioJP on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 9:34pm
i dunno about windows being completely open source. I mean windows is not completely closed source either. I think windows is fine where its at. the consumer just got too picky these days and want to try alternatives which ultimately might cause the marketshare to drop some but wouldn't drop completely though. Sides 90% is too much for microsoft to handle anyways need to chop off the excess marketshare lol.
Submitted by strykyr on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 9:22pm
When I can go to Walmart and buy a game off the shelf and bring it home and know it's going to work on some form of linux then we will talk. Untill then forget it. Period.
Open-source != Free
Submitted by Wareagle on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 8:46pm
They could offer the source code for Windows but still charge for CDs of compiled code.
Most of their OS sales are OEM anyway, so as long as Dell and HP keep giving them money, they're good.
Huh? Windows is already
Submitted by kleinkinstein on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 8:20pm
Huh? Windows is already open source, http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
Submitted by MrNaPaLm32 on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 10:24pm
haha. ReactOS isn't Windows.
Submitted by DravenX on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 8:35pm
It might look like Windows but it's not Microsoft Windows.
Submitted by grayscare0 on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 8:34pm
ReactOS is still in the alpha stage. It's hardly an alternative to the official Windows operating systems.
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.