[isleyaardvark]

It's not so much the stagnation, or even the technical flaws, it's the lock-in. That's the ultimate source of most people's problems with IE, it's the tight integration with IE6 and enterprise apps. That's why dealing with IE6's technical flaws is still a problem, it's difficult for users to switch due to lock-in. That's why MS's browser development stagnated, they had obtained the browser share and got lazy. And that's why standards are important.

[derefr]

And the solution to that is pushing out a security update that turns IE6 into something like Mozilla Prism, where you have to set it up for each individual enterprise site that relies on it, and can't use it for "free-range" browsing. Pack that update with an alternate-browser-download tool as well, with a system-tray alert saying "Your computer will no longer be able to connect to the World Wide Web until you have selected a browser to install" every hour or so. I think they just don't want to start up the pre-XP updating machinery again.

[jodrellblank]

Why would they? Windows 2000 is ten years old, that's longer than the security patch support period of RedHat/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS, Debian, Solaris (and Windows 2000).

Why would or should they go back to developing a free browser for an out of support system which will mess up the user's system as a deliberate side effect, for the benefit of some arbitrary web developers?

[derefr]

It's not really support for their old browsers, though—it's User Experience support for their new ones. Banishing IE6 allows all websites more freedom to use modern formats and specs. Modern formats and specs give them something to compete on in IE9.

To put it another way—if there was an update they could release to Windows 2000, at this point, that people would install voluntarily, but would make more people buy Windows 7 as an effect, don't you think Microsoft would be all over that?