Yes, Rick, but Java updates itself 4,000 times a day - so it must be a superior product!
Works is still around, but for the home user just getting into things, I think OpenOffice.org is the better product. And it's a LOT cheaper than MS Works.
For those hell-bent nerds that claim Linux is the answer, let me speak from personal experience. I have been running Ubuntu for a couple years now. I am generally happy with it, but it is not ready for business yet. I still think Windows is cheaper.
Ubuntu has fewer security concerns, but the question would be "Why?"
One major "Why" is the same "Why" that people hated about NT. It was very stable, very secure - but didn't run anyone's programs. Why? because programmers didn't follow the rules - mostly. A side note to that would be drivers - most manufacturers didn't build consumer grade products with NT drivers. That was reserved for commercial grade devices. In Linux - it's pretty much reserved for some nerd who owns one and wants to donate his time.
The Linux file system is more easily geared to protect core files than NTFS - except with the introduction of access control lists. Recent Linux versions have some support for this complex and flexible ACL mechanism. Either way - it's usually the USER that decides to give bad programs permission to run. Less security means easier to use.
"You can's get a virus on a Mac or Linux!" - WRONG! It is significantly less likely, but as Linux gains main-stream popularity, users will lower security to make life easier, more targets will exist for programmers, and more people will click "ok" when they should not. I definitely expect to start seeing significant Linux mal-ware in the near future.
"Linux is more stable" - well not really. It can be. My server runs almost flawlessly, but my desktop, where I run applications written by volunteers - I have memory leaks, programs that suddenly close with no warning, and lockups. It's really no different that Windows Applications. Fact of the matter is that software is VARY HARD to write. People being paid to do it generally do a better job IMHO.
"Yes, but you can run Linux on an ENIAC!" Get real, just because an OS CAN run on low power hardware, doesn't mean anyone wants to. I can run Windows 95 on systems that Ubuntu cannot touch - unless I install the server edition, which has no GUI. All the nice things that people want to use require resources. Period. There is no such thing as a free GUI. It costs a lot of RAM, Processor Power and hardware to run. Take a look at how much resource consumption there is with the Media Center Edition. Again, Windows 95 can run on a pretty basic machine. So can NT. Apples to Apples, Feature for Feature, they are still very comparable. In many cases, Windows products out-perform Linux - mostly BECAUSE of the loose relationship to the core, ability to reuse code, and lesser security. To illustrate MS efficiency over Open Source at reusing code, I have Firefox AND IE open right now. IE is using 28MB and FF is using 71MB. Both are viewing the same page of milescity.com.
Ubuntu is going to be the clear winner in Linux for the next while I think. There are a lot of really good points to it, and there are a lot of limitations to it. Keep in mind, that while it is free, their programmers are being paid well to write a good GUI (btw-try the Linux Media Center if you haven't - uber cool). The company is backed by a Billionaire, Google regularly supports it, and they do have paid support plans.
There is some really good Open Source programs out there to run on it, and it "Comes with thousands of applications" - but the truth is that most of those applications are a) dependent parts to other programs, or b) not so functional. Open Source people are just usually patient enough to realize their rocket was build by the lowest bidder (nerd up all night on a caffeine high) can call it "pretty good".