What do you think in general of the security community's response to this whole issue. Did it help or detract from your ability to get the real story out as far as the seriousness of the flaw was concerned? Our analysis remains consistent that the threat of infection had been contained and was not spreading rapidly. The data supports that, and we certainly expect that once all of the data is in, the statistical analysis will support that. In these situations, there is always a lot of information that is flowing around. In some cases, there is some misinformation; in some cases, information is being provided for self-serving reasons by individuals or organizations trying to draw attention to themselves. All of that chatter makes it difficult for customers to know what authoratitive source to put their confidence in.

At Microsoft, we want to be authoratitive, clear, consistent and transparent. With this issue, we have maintained active communication; we have always tried to be open and transparent. There are times when our guidance may be in conflict with some of the more inflammatory things you hear in newsgroups and press headlines. But if anyone was to do a backward look, you will see our guidance is always based very much on data and very much on analysis with the customer interest in mind.