There's three points I'd like to address about your comment: 1. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Microsoft should be "universal, across all OSs" about them

There's three points I'd like to address about your comment: 1. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Microsoft should be "universal, across all OSs" about them releasing their new browser with their new OS. It's completely reasonable for MS to make the break with their bad browser design to occur at an OS boundary, since what was made their design exceptionally bad was largely coupling of components in to the OS. 2. You're just being completely unfair talking about the versions. The answer is just that Microsoft uses different version schemes than Google and Mozilla with regards to browsers. Your comparison about the gaps in IE compatibility would be like saying Chrome 30 isn't the same as Chrome 20. In your comment, you're comparing different sized steps, based on the assumption that an integer is a reasonable unit to compare the numbers based on. Shame that version numbers aren't numbers in that sense that that tactic doesn't work. 3. Continual updates pushed to the browser already happens under Microsoft's suggested running of Windows -- both minor upgrades (which are the equivalent of the Chrome and FF upgrades you reference), and the suggestion for major upgrades. It just doesn't happen across the board right away because of IT policies in place. This is a concession to major corporate clients who don't want tens of thousands of copies of their software across the globe randomly changing at the behest of some other company, and prefer to manage their own upgrades.