For the three months ending September 30, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue, $2.24bn in profits. Sounds like a good reason to hold off the open-sourcing a little longer, at least to me...
The three major OSes are controlled by Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Linux and relatives are great but haven't gained real traction outside of Android.
Apple wants to sell hardware so creates a tight software ecosystem. Microsoft wants to sell software so focuses making their OS valuable enough to justify the cost. Google wants to sell ads so gives away their OS.
Android is open source because Google doesn't have anything to lose by doing it. No more no less.
You provide no support for this statement, so we're left to ask what you mean by it. What is your meaning? Before you answer, please look at this:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
That shows that Windows is about 91% of the desktop operating system market. On what do you base them as needing to prove "it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"?
In fact, the one operating system on that chart that supports an "open-OS" ethos takes up less than 2% of desktop operating system market. I would think that operating system would be the one that needs to prove its relevance as we are almost 14 years into the 21st century.
The proprietary OS vendors are still holding on to their installed customer base, and must of course continue to support bad technology decisions. But on the other hand, in the "what shocking thing should Microsoft do next to prove that it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"-Department, wouldn't it be fabulous if The New Guy, given the reigns, decides to send the troops on a prolonged engagement far, far away from the "safety" and "sanctity" of corporate property.