It is legitimate to ask a more direct question: Does the IE browser's update status really matter security-wise per se, if the future MS computing model is to be built on .NET web-tethered pay-frequently apps?

Browsers in this context matter little if future MS computing simply requires use of an XP SP2+ "integrated" functionality.

It seems to me this is the more significant question re the evolvution of IE. What may matter more than "security" is that if MS makes the use of .NET style apps dependent on an up-to-date integrated "Explorer", then the market will in fact be even more strongly driven to XP and then to Longhorn than the present thesis might imply.

Security may be the vocal cover, but lock-out come Longhorn could be the real outcome, all quite ironically a function of an "integrated" Explorer tied to Windows as the predicate for future computing.

It is quite brilliant, really; not only does the .NET future insert a requirement for Windows to be used for real uses to be exploited (pontification to the contrary), but it also now seems to be rolling the browser into the mix. Before we were compelled to buy Windows; now we shall have to buy Windows and IE, i.e., Windows XP and then Longhorn.

In this context much of the side-chatter about how Firefox may potentially eat at IE's share is beside the point, because in the future it isn't going to be the browser where the Maginot line is drawn; rather, it will be in the form of web-centric computing that incidentally needs Windows and incidentally the browser in that specific Windows, i.e., XP and then Longhorn.

Case in point: I noticed the other day that my Inspiron 1150 laptop, which has XP Home on it, includes a curious parallel browser called MSN Explorer. It is a conduit to free goodies and to what appear to be some extra-fee web services.

I sense this Evolved Explorer-as-predicate to future features model is what MS is trying out on XP with MSN Explorer. The docs say that Explorer 5.5 or later is needed to run MSN Explorer, but then since this whole deal isn't built into Win2K or Win98, this in effect means that only users of XP's Explorer version will be using it as deployed on the Inspiron. It is not copyable off of XP Home, either.

Now, when the day comes that IE as offered in XP SP2 or later is required for the MSN Explorer, well then, the upgrade jig will be up, and we shall all be singing "Redmond" when asked then where we want to go that day, and the days thereafter. That is rather more pressure than just a desire for an IE security fix.

I've noted this problem in many of Microsoft's programs since XP. I've started to offer Mozilla or Firefox as an alternative to IE. If Microsoft will not fix these older versions, then I have no choice but to go to alternative browsers where security has been addressed. Atleast these browsers will work with all of my windows platforms that I've serving. This includes some windows 98 systems which cannot be upgraded for another year or so.

It would seem to me that the U.S. Government should step in and require Microsoft to support those older OS's due to safety issues. Don't the auto manufacturers have to issue safety recalls on models older than the current one?

Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot. The idea of “forcing” a person to upgrade for security reasons on a supposedly free product is ridiculous. I love Microsoft and the products they product, but lately their actions have me scratching my head in disbelief. Don’t they see FireFox coming up behind them? Yes they currently have 75% of the market, but how long can they sustain that margin acting like they are the only game in town? I understand that people need to pay for certain items, but only allow updates to a webbrowser to certain is a bit ridiculous.

On the flip side: Then again, is IE already “tied” into Windows XP so much that there is really no easy way to make an update for older versions. Also, really, people really should update… win 98 and ME are ancient history. Should MS update these products forever?