Reader Comments

"If Microsoft can secure a system as complex as Windows..." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That'll kill 'em in Ireland.

"Firefox will suffer from vulnerabilities from time to time. But its architecture is cleaner and safer than IE's." Wait a minute...I thought IE was part of Windows. And didn't you just say Windows was secure? Maybe Windows ITSELF is secure, but everything that runs under it isn't. Is that what you meant? Is anyone else confused?

Have a good time in Ireland!

My question is simple. If Microsoft can secure a system as complex as Windows, why can't Apple secure one service? Man, that one is a tear-jerker!

Windows is secure?? Wow, I didn't know that. I guess I'll just ignore REALITY and believe that because you wrote it down. By the way, Windows is not attacked because it is so popular, it is attacked because it is a pile of doo doo. OS X, Unix, Linux, etc. are attacked less because they are inherently more secure (well, according to security experts but of course, Microsoft (and you) disagree). By the way, comparing security of an OS running on a computer versus security of files that are downloaded is like comparing apples to supernovas. They are completely in a different realm. But I can see that you don't let a little thing like reality and facts get in your way when you are on your soap box. Hey, did you talk to any real PROGRAMMERS when you "researched" this article?...obviously not.

Good one about Apple securing it's service Paul, I'm passing that one around the office!

"If Microsoft can secure a system as complex as Windows..." That's priceless, right there. While you're in Ireland... STAY THERE.

Yeah no kidding, this guy always seems brainwashed about Windows. It's so clear that he only writes what the Microsoft camp tells him. And what is this about iTunes? I'm sure that the iTunes music store is very secure being that it is NOT run on Windows. It's the drm we're talking about here and Apple only makes their drm as secure as the record labels want them to, almost as though they want people to be able to skirt around it if they are technically inclined enough to be able to. Just like they don't want people to take music OFF an iPod and put it on another computer, there are 3rd party products to do that too... I still remember the first time I read one of this guys articles and thought he was a sales guy for Microsoft.

Come on Paul. I'm a PC guy, and even I think you're shilling something for Microsoft when you write that type of stuff. Our IT department has been fighting through systemic security flaws in Windows. It's notorious at this point how porous Windows, IE, etc, etc. I agree Apple needs to lock-down ITunes, but you simply lose all credibility when you try to say it should be like Windows. Plus, it is just a petty cheap shot. You can easily make your point that Apple should lock down itunes without fabricating the state of security in Windows.

I think the problem is mine. My English is horrible, and then I understood (don't laugh at me) you were saying XP is secure. Can you say again what's your point, please? Thanks, Gabriel

OK kids, take a guess which media file format adware and spyware were piggybacking onto? Ding Ding. MICROSOFT WINDOWS MEDIA! Sure it's better; if you're those characters on the AOL commecrcials.

Hilarious, keep believing it, just like so many others. Remember, your ignorance is our money. (said Gates, and Symantec) Seems you're a smart guy Paul, so please explain to me: How come that I am connected to the web, average 12hrs a day, for 350 days now. I surf the web and I download and open every single email and attachement I get, I don't have an anti-virus program, most of the time working from home, without firewall and the funny thing is, in about a year's time, my first crash is still to happen, the first virus did not even knock on the door yet, let alone introduce himself! Oh, guess what, almost forgot, I am a happy switcher since day one of those 350 days and got about 15 people switched by now as well. You get my point? I hope so, though I really doubt it...

Yes, there is a huge difference between the security of an Operating System and bypassing a DRM. iTunes has never been comprimised and is in no way a security risk on your computer. Amazing how much FUD this guy spreads. Hey Paul, smarten up or you may lose what little credibility you have left. Oh, and post SP2 XP still sucks.

Sure, Window is MUCH more secure!!! This is ALL a coincidence: Apple's Mac OS X is virus-free - March 18, 2005 68,736 Microsoft Windows viruses vs. zero for Apple Mac's OS X - March 12, 2005 Microsoft tries to turn its own security flaw into commercial gain - February 25, 2005 Cybersecurity advisor Clarke questions why anybody would buy from Microsoft - February 18, 2005 Microsoft's Gates espouses homogenous operating system environments for better security - February 07, 2005 Windows' mounting security problems make some consumers eager to purchase Macs - January 03, 2005 Windows Media songs and videos found to carry Windows malware payloads - December 30, 2004 Anzae/Inzae worm affects all Windows versions after 3.1; Macintosh unaffected - December 28, 2004 Unlike Windows users, Mac OS X users surf the Internet without a care in the world - December 28, 2004 Multiple unpatched Windows holes crop up; Windows systems compromised within minutes in experiment - December 24, 2004 Windows spyware mess is out of control, get a Mac and surf with impunity - December 21, 2004 New Microsoft Internet Explorer exploit spoofs Web sites on fully patched Windows XP systems - December 17, 2004 Microsoft may charge extra for Windows spyware protection software - December 16, 2004 Detroit Free Press: Windows malware problem getting worse, it's time to get a Mac instead - December 16, 2004 Sick of spyware, adware headaches? Get a Mac and surf the Internet freely - December 13, 2004 Mossberg: Windows PCs plagued with problems, Apple's Mac is 'rock solid, elegant and affordable' - December 09, 2004 Security expert: Don't use Microsoft Windows, Office, Outlook, Internet Explorer - December 09, 2004 Security test: Windows XP system easily compromised while Apple's Mac OS X stands safe and secure - November 30, 2004 Sick of spyware, adware infecting your PC? Don't fret, just get a Mac - November 01, 2004 Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac - October 08, 2004 Spyware plagues Windows users while Mac users surf Net with impunity - November 01, 2004 Ballmer blames Windows users for not upgrading systems as Microsoft's biggest security problem - October 22, 2004 Windows users line up to pay for spyware removal; Mac users surf Web with impunity - October 18, 2004 Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac - October 08, 2004 Windows users' security woes spark interest in Apple's secure Mac OS X - October 06, 2004 Windows desktop monopoly threatened by secure, safe Apple Mac OS X - October 04, 2004 Even Bill Gates can't avoid Windows malware; Mac users surf the Web freely - October 03, 2004 Cyber-security adviser uses Apple Macintosh to avoid Windows' security woes - September 27, 2004 Information Security Investigator says switch from Windows to Mac OS X for security - September 24, 2004 Mossberg: Apple iMac G5 'powerful, affordable, virus-free with better, more modern OS than Windows XP' - September 23, 2004 USA Today: people are switching from Windows to Mac because of security issues - September 21, 2004 Windows besieged by hackers; number of Windows viruses soars by more than 400% - September 20, 2004 USA Today columinst angry about Windows viruses, adware, spyware - September 15, 2004 University of Chicago recommends all students patch Windows at least once a day - September 14, 2004 Windows XP worm speaks to users as it deletes their files; Macintosh unaffected - September 13, 2004 Security is top priority in Apple's Mac OS X - September 12, 2004 Millions of Windows PC's hijacked by hackers, turned into zombies; Macintosh unaffected - September 08, 2004 Mossberg: Dump your Windows machine and get an Apple Macintosh to free yourself of spyware - August 25, 2004 Tired of patching patches to patch Windows patches? Writer suggests getting a Mac - August 03, 2004 Windows 'Scob' virus designed to steal financial data, passwords; Macintosh unaffected - June 26, 2004 Gartner: Worms jack up the total cost of Microsoft Windows - May 07, 2004 Spyware, adware plague Windows users online; Mac OS X users surf freely - April 19, 2004 SmartMoney: Long-suffering Windows users can only dare to dream of Mac's ease-of-use - February 12, 2004 Mac OS X has no viruses; what's wrong with Windows? - February 11, 2004 Gates: Windows 'by far the most secure' system; tries to use 'Mac OS X secure through obscurity' myth - January 27, 2004 Columnist tries the 'security through obscurity' myth to defend Windows vs. Macs on virus front - October 1, 2003 New York Times: Mac OS X 'much more secure than Windows XP' - September 18, 2003 Wall Street Journal's Mossberg on making the switch from Windows to Mac - September 18, 2003 Fortune columnist: 'get a Mac' to thwart viruses; right answer for the wrong reasons - September 02, 2003 Shattering the Mac OS X 'security through obscurity' myth - August 28, 2003 Is Mac OS X really inherently more secure than Windows? - August 26, 2003 Chicago Sun-Times columnist: Windows 'many holes in its security' but 'none of my Macs have ever been affected - August 26, 2003 Sick of worms and viruses? 'Move to Mac OS X' suggests Chicago Tribune columnist - August 25, 2003 Virus and worm problems not just due to market share; Windows inherently insecure vs. Mac OS X - August 24, 2003

Paul lost what little credibility he had in my book when he kept insisting that Windows was more secure because it received a Common Criteria EAL. For anyone that knows what an EAL really is, this should tell you all you need to know about Paul's understanding of security, or lack thereof.

I guess someone needed some hits to drum up ad dollars or make sure his hits were bigger than his temp replacement before he left for vacation. Sorry Paul, but your motives here are pretty transparent. I am not a Mac user, but I know when someone is trying to get hits from the loyal Mac community. Pretty sad. Please treat your profession with a little more care and have a little more self respect next time. You're a good journalist, and this is beneath you.

Let's see. Last week Thurott has exclusive information and screenshots on Longhorn. This week, you are spreading lies and pro-Microsoft propaganda. Quid Pro Quo? Reminds me of the Bush White House. As long as you know Paul that you are not too clever to not have your regular readers see the dubious manner in which you work. I used to be a pretty big fan, particularly as someone who makes his living on Windows. But this is pretty disgraceful. You should be using your public voice to keep the pressure on MSFT to fix the many, many security problems in Windows. For shame Paul. For shame.

As secure as Windows? Come on Paul. That's embarrassing for you. My IT department and I fight the problems in Windows weekly, including buggy patches and having to figure out what MS has hidden in the mandatory security patch, e.g. switch our 1,000 supported machines from google to msn search. You can hate Apple all you want--a lot of us do--but this is a Windows site, and you just don't have any credibility saying things like that. Maybe you need to work in a corporate IT department for a week or two. You'll never write such a thing again.

I agree with the previous poster. Paul, you really should spend a week or two in a corporate IT department. Time to get out of the world of press releases and playing around with products and try supporting a few thousand machines. You will never, ever, refer to Windows as secure again. And you will learn that the patches from Microsoft cannot be trusted. (Bugs and little MS tricks) I kid you not, 3 of us sat in our cubes and laughed. My buddy said, "Oh, we need to get that version of Windows since it has to be better than XP."

Do anybody know when will be on sale on Spain this new version of Windows XP (virus free). Thank you

Enjoy Ireland Paul. And I hope you read the posts here with care. You clearly over-reached in your Apple bashing. As a Microsoft community, we have to be honest with ourselves. "Secure like Windows" is dishonest and you know it. And as you can tell from the posts here, even the PC guys are mocking you.

Should Apple lock down iTunes? Yes. Should Apple make it as secure as Windows? No. That would be a step backwards. Paul, is it time to re-qualify for the MS MVP program? Or are you already checked-out mentally for your vacation?

Paul - you are a tool... but besides that, thanks for giving me the best laugh of the week! Secure like Windows... hahahahaha - oxymoron? Dark like the sun...

Paul change his ways? Sorry, Paul will continue to be his usual arrogant self, somehow thinking that his continual Mac bashing is "being honest about the platform," but lacking the same honesty when referring to Windows.

In my 20 years of IT support, never have I heard anyone say something so far off base. If Microsoft can secure Windows? Come on Paul. They can't even stop people from stealing the software and getting around the authentication process. You still have to pay for the song under iTunes.

Maybe the XBOXen shortage is because of hacked XBOXen? I don't game too much, but I love my XBMC for music and photos. The dashboard replacements and mod chips keep getting better. And to think that the XBOX was designed to keep people from playing with it.

Yes, Paul, as others have said, can you tell us where to buy this new version of Windows. I support 190 PCs, and it would make my job much easier. Maybe I can stop doing the unpaid overtime, unpaid because my boss likes to remind me someone in India will do my job cheaper. As others have said, it's time for you to spend a month in an IT department, not jetting off to Ireland for a long weekend. You really are out of touch with your readers, I hate to say.

Talk about comparing apples and oranges. Aside from the two being nothing alike, you picked a foul, rotten orange as your benchmark with which to compare against Apple. Clueless.

PLEASE: Do anybody know when will be on sale on Spain this new version of Windows XP (virus free). Thank you

As MrVJTod said: "As others have said, it's time for you to spend a month in an IT department, not jetting off to Ireland for a long weekend. You really are out of touch with your readers, I hate to say." Paul, I hope you have the courage to take this advice. You're writing is good and I like you many online column, but you are a tad bit out of touch with the average IT worker.

Paul, you find the most amazing ways to bash Apple. iTunes is somehow "insecure" because some guy removed the DRM from the downloaded files? What does this have to do with Windows, anyway? One is an operating system (that has had it's fair share of embarrassing exploits...I remember fixing people's rebooting Windows boxes last year, ahem), the other is a music app. What insecurity is there in it other than some guy found out how to strip the DRM from his purchased music? Is this some sort of Microsoft WMP DRM prop or something? Get real, Paul...

P.S. Paul is known for randomly bashing Apple. Do a search through the archive and see several references to "dying Apple marketshare." Paul doesn't seem to be reciting that phrase so much anymore, does he?

Thanks for the article Paul. You prevented me from making a disasterous mistake. I almost bought a Mac until I read in your article that Windows was secure. I don't recall M$ advertising the fact but if you wrote it, then it must be true. Gotta go now, Nursie says it's time for my medication.

I say good for Paul. And I disagree with my IT buddies here. As long as guys like Paul keeps up the perception that Windows is as secure as an OS can be, then people will keep buying. And that keeps me in a job. Not as high paying as it used to be, but it keeps me employed. People forget the complexity and insecurity of MS products has created an enormous industry to support it. My family and I thank you Paul. And to the other IT guys here: keep your yap shut. If Windows or the other MS products were really as good as the marketing and the MS friendly press said, you'd be selling real estate--if you were lucky.

Paul, you are such a pathetic shill.

I am a former Microsoftie, and truth be told, we would laugh at guys like Paul and marvel at the power of our "outreach" programs to the media and key influencers. But the sad thing is how we used to talk about these people. "Who will sell this?" "Who needs an interview with Bill or Steve?" "Who had a recent campus visit?" "Who can we send to the labs?" I think writers would be pretty sad if they knew the mechanics behind the process and how we talked about them.

Oh man, this killed me. Woooooo, I still have tears in my eyes. Microsoft has secured a complex system like Windows? Oh man, what are you smoking? Listen, I admit it, I'm a Mac addict and hate Microsoft as much as the next Mac addict. But I'm also a journalist, and reading a fellow journalist make such a ridiculously stupid comment just kills me. Are you on Microsoft's payroll? How can anyone say Windows is a "secure" system? Heck, I can understand that perhaps some mental illness makes people pick Windows over a Mac; but to say it's secure is just insanity. But even better, you try to tie that to some odd comment about iTune's DRM. Hell, you can strip the DRM off an iTunes file by burning a CD of the file and reimporting it. I guess THAT makes iTunes insecure too by your logic. Un-freakin-believable.

Paul, you should really post an apology. But I'm sure you, like many other people, have a hard time admitting when you've messed up.

I've written to Paul a couple of times to complain about his wanton bias - illustrated by his comments above on Xbox i.e. when Apple sells out of iPods it's because they can't plan production, when MS sells out of XBOX it's becuase the product is incredible – and all I got back was an email telling me a) how sad my life is to bother writing to him and b) how he didn't even know who Penton Media (publishers of Windows IT Pro) are or the identity of the vice-president of the Penton division responsible for Windows IT Pro. I've since given up buying Penton magazines, simply because they don't seem to want to deal with what I'll call "The Thurrott Problem". That said, this does actually qualify as one of Paulie's most surreal articles and one can't help but wonder if he's been overdoing the celebrations since Superbowl added to his World Series celebrations. What dear old Paul fails to appreciate is that there is a wealth of difference between "hacking" the Fairplay DRM - which is there to inconvenience commercial music pirates and indiscriminate file sharers - and the 100,000+ pieces of malware that infest his "secure" platform due to Redmond's overweaning desire to build everything into operating system and the holes left as a result.

M$ Shill Boy - seems like you went on vacation BEFORE you wrote this article. You jack@ss.

Get real Paul, Windoze is a piece of turd.

Paul, do you think... anything?

I'm actually glad he wrote it. It's obvious he's frustrated with increased mindshare of ANYTHING other than Microsoft, and thus keeps going further out on the edge in his rambling. As a result, his credibility in his core profession is ZERO which will negatively impact any future he would have otherwise had as a journalist. Keep up the great work, Paul!

My questions to the flamers: Why do you come to a pro-MS website and bash MS? Why dont you head back to slashdot where you belong.

Answer: It's not Slashdot, chump. It's THE REST OF THE WORLD. You MSCE boneheads have the 'nads to throw stones at Apple's security model while sitting behind a Windows box. To me, you're like a interesting zoo exhibit, thus, my visit.

How in the world can you be "Pro-MS" with an animated search dog and Clippy the paper clip? Do you ride the short bus?

"An often irreverent look at some of the week's other news..." More like irrelevant.

"I subscribe to a line of thinking that goes like this: Windows is attacked so often because it controls such a large portion of the market. Period." What a surprise. Here's news for you, Paulie. The relevant issue is not how often something is attacked, it's how often those attacks are successful, and the resultant impact of those attacks. My God, the lost productivity in this country due to successful attacks on the Windows OS is staggering. "Regardless, iTunes, like pre-XP SP2 versions of Windows, has fallen time and again under the withering attack of hackers who are intent on gaining access to the service. Doing so is amazingly easy." The sad part of this statement is that so many of Paul's minions will take this pathetic statement at face value. Paul: If it's so bloody "amazingly easy", please cite some specific examples besides the (admittedly genius) one used this time. Who else has "gained access to the service"? Show us just how "iTunes is compromised far more often than Windows-based services". Be specific. Be the journalist you so desperately want to be rather than the hack you are. It's not that we're upset that you're urinating all over Apple. We're used to that. We get it--you don't like Steve Jobs. He must have kicked sand in your face at the beach one time. OK. Fine. What we're railing against are the kind of stupid, childish attacks you're putting out there under the guise of "news". Perfect example: as someone else pointed out here, whenever a company (like Apple) experiences shortages, you say they're incompetent liars, or laughingly dismiss the shortages as either fake or the result of poor product planning. But now that your fanboy friends can't easily buy an XBox, it must be because of "unprecedented demand". Honest to God. Stop. It's amazing that you can walk upright without a spine.

Wow, this is the first time i've read a Thurott article. Assuredly, it'll be the last, as there's obviously no journalistic integrity to be had here. Someone actually *pays* this guy to write? To have one's nose so blatantly up the buttcrack of Microsoft is really rather sad to see nowadays. Making a completely wrong statement about the security of windows, and compare that to iTMS being hacked? So that's two lies in one. iTunes has never been hacked, unless you're hacking the local program on your machine. (and of course that NEVER happens on a Windows box). I'm assuming he meant iTMS has been hacked, or, in his words, "has fallen time and again under the withering attack of hackers". It has? When? Hacking an mp3 file's DRM has absolutely NOTHING to do with breaking the security of iTMS itself. But then, after all this falsehood to turn around and make a big deal about the Xbox, with voice quivering, is in short supply...good gods. Does this man know anything about hardware supply protocols? Its called "end of cycle". If the XBox 2 is coming out soon, then M$ is going to stop producing XBox 1, since it won't sell any more. Get it? Basic economics. You should try taking a class in sometime, Thurott. And while you're at it, you might think about adding an ethics class to your schedule.

Test post 1

Test post 2

Hmm, it seems to me Paul that you should update your comment software to only allow a single post from any particular location. Otherwise, I could sit here and pretend to be a whole crowd and folks reading these comments wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Good take on the iTunes fiasco. The myth of OS X security will eventually come to a halt as well. Microsoft is not less secure, indeed the constant patching against attacks have made it the most secure OS out there. One day, it Apple actually takes a whole whopping 5 percent of the market, we'll see how easy it is to attack OS X, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Interesting: "Good take on the iTunes fiasco." Three idiots on the same page.

If OS X was so easy to attack, it would have been done already... yet Mac users surf the Web, read their e-mail, etc. without an issue. Unix is secure. That is why it's used to much in the scientific community. The reason IT departments use Windows is because it keeps them in a job. Apple already has over 5 percent of the market.. the numbers always cited by "journalists" is the number that Apple sells in a year compared to other PC manufacturers. That's something like 2 percent. But the reason for that is Macs don't need to be replaced anywhere near as often as PCs. I'd like the poster to also explain the "iTunes fiasco." Is that fiasco that the store has helped propel Apple to the forefront of digital music and is helping convert people to Macintosh every day? I realize this is a Windows site, but you people who say us Mac zealots believe everything Apple throws at us and are blind to everything else REALLY need to look at yourselves and this crazy defense of Microsoft. You really like being treated like crap, don't you?

RE: " Microsoft is not less secure, indeed the constant patching against attacks have made it the most secure OS out there" It's **** like this that makes us call you Wintards.

"The myth of OS X security will eventually come to a halt as well." ZERO viruses compared to 70,00+. Asshat.

Mock all you want Apple fans. We make a ton of money dealing with Microsoft products, security holes and all. It's why we drive Mercedes Benz cars while you drive your iPod Edition Volkswagon Bug. There is money to be made in inefficiency and complexity. Thurott, for all the name calling, understands this and probably makes a fortune. And IT guys do too. You can't cash Apple simplicity. But keep buying those design books while we laugh all the way to the bank. It's why Gates mocks Jobs. A huge support industry for Microsoft products locks in the standards and creates a sales channel no company, not even Microsoft, could afford. And yes, if Longhorn is a mess, it means even more money for us for the next 10 years.

I hate to admit it, but the other guys are right: Microsoft bugs and viruses (virusi?) = $$$$ for Me. Time to grow up Apple zealots.

"Why Is iTunes So Insecure?" Let's ignore that Windows is far from secure. The irony is that the iTMS is also more secure than other services based on Microsoft's Janus technology. Go to Napster and download all the music you want with an incredibly brain dead way to work-around the DRM. Not that you can't work-around the DRM from iTMS or for that matter YOU WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO WORK-AROUND THE DRM FROM ANY AUDIO FILE, but with the iTMS, you must pay 99 cents per track *BEFORE* you work around the DRM on that track. Meanwhile at Napster and other Microsoft Janus based services, you can download tracks, work around the DRM, keep them forever and do so without paying a penny during the free trial period. Paul, really...what's up with you?

"We make a ton of money dealing with Microsoft products, security holes and all." Yeah, compared to your last job at Best Buy, I'm sure you do. We all know how "highly paid" MCSE's are. The joke's on you.

Great point above. iTunes' weakness means no DRM after you pay for it. Microsoft allows you to steal over 1,000,000 songs with no DRM without paying for anything but 15 bucks. The more I think about it, how can Paul have written this article? I certainly am no Apple apologist, but as other IT folks have said, this is just way off base.

From the front page of this online magazine: New MyDoom/Bofra variants are on the loose and at least one of them (MyDoom.ah), at first glance, looks like a phishing attempt. I received an email this morning (seen below) that poses as a message from PayPal. But the embedded link in the email doesn't point to PayPal. Instead it points to an infected user's system. When the link is visited a Web page is loaded that contains and IFRAME buffer overflow exploit which serves to download and run the virus. -------------------------- Congratulations! PayPal has successfully charged $175 to your credit card. Your order tracking number is A866DEC0, and your item will be shipped within three business days. To see details please click this link [a href="http://192.168.0.12:1639/index.htm"] link. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE VIA EMAIL! This email is being sent by an automated message system and the reply will not be received. Thank you for using PayPal. -------------------------- The virus opens a Web server on port 1639, connects to various IRC servers, gathers email addresses from the infected user's system and then proceeds to email messages to people hoping they'll click the link and infect themselves. But as you can see from the message I received, the virus doesn't work if the infected user is behind a NAT network since the user's NAT address will appear in the clickable URL which obviously isn't a routable address on the Internet and is therefore unreachable by people outside the NAT network.  PAUL, are you even reading the magazines you write for? Sorry, but it is hard to disagree with the Apple fans who call you a shill for Microsoft. You give the IT community a bad name with stupid pop shots like this.

You people make me laugh, look at the ads surrounding Paul's pages, he's not generating the ad revenue by being a Microsoft fanboy. He's getting paid from this gig because all of you people come here, read his stuff every week and then proceed to bag him out. He collects the unique visitor and hit stats and the powers that be lift the ad rates for his pages, thank you very much. I have a suggestion for you, stop coming to his site! First of all, you won't read his articles that obviously infuriate some of you so much and then by sheer cause and effect, his visitor numbers will reduce and eventually it won't be financially viable for him to write stuff anymore. Its like TV, if you don't like what's on, don't complain to the FCC, complain to the advertisers and stop watching!

Real point to potential switchers: how secure is Apple? If Apple had the same marketshare as Windows, how many security failures? Does Apple have the ressource to cope with security failures? So your line of thinking is 100% right.

With the 10 or so fixes that Apple posted the other day, I wouldn't say OSX's security is all that.

I have to work with microsoft - imposition from the group I work for, but I also use Linux, so I respect both "sides". Mac OSX is based from the most secure kernel: BSD, so you do know what that means? There are a lot of "not so logic" things in the Windows world, but Windows world pays my salary... :-)

Ouch

hate to admit it, but the other guys are right: Microsoft bugs and viruses (virusi?) = $$$$ for Me. ---- You hate to admit it?? It's what Mac users have known for years. The Mac OS X puts IT staff out of work, that's why IT guys 'reccomend' Windows. Duh!

"If Microsoft can secure a system as complex as Windows ..." hey paul, stop hogging that crack-pipe all for yourself!

Utter crap...

Stick to writing about Windows because you don't know anything about Macs or OSX!

A secure mac? pfff Secure itunes? pfff apple doesn't know a thing about security. They have never been targeted. I feel sorry for all the bunch of OSX users who think they are secure.

Linux and Mac are irrelivent. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. See? I can go completely offtopic also just like the rest of you. Now how about getting back on the topic of the article instead of flaming each other like a bunch of 13 year olds in Counter-Strike?

All of you guys are supporting Paul's salary by hitting his site. He's not as dumb as you think. My question to the Mac fans, if Windows is so horrible, why have they had the gargantuan market share for 15+ years? I don't see that waning either.

Paul, quite honestly, is fat and bloated. He's really put on the pounds.

"My question to the Mac fans, if Windows is so horrible, why have they had the gargantuan market share for 15+ years? I don't see that waning either." Two things, actually Herd mentality. Lock In.

"If Microsoft can secure..." That's one if statement certain to remain false. Might as well ignore whatever follows.

Microsoft secure?? LOL! Is it april already?

Guys, Paul Thurrot is a TROLL. Hey, Paul, remember when you wrote this? "While Apple has been busy copping Windows features since Jobs returned to Apple in late 1996 [!!!!!], the company's tiny market share ensures that very few people will benefit from Spotlight, despite Apple claims that it will deliver on desktop search a year before Microsoft ships Longhorn." Yeah, that thing in your mouth is your foot. Guys, Paul has always trolled people and bashed Apple and Linux with backhanded insults. Now that Forbes predicts Apple gaining market points this year, Paul looks foolish, his only resort to ask flamebait like "Why is iTunes so insecure?" because someone stripped DRM from their purchased songs, which apparently has something to do with insecurity in Windows (you know, like when your computer reboots endlessly or remote code is executed thanks to IE). Paul, get off it already. You're a joke.

"My question to the Mac fans, if Windows is so horrible, why have they had the gargantuan market share for 15+ years? I don't see that waning either." Did you miss the numerous criminal cases against Microsoft--every single one MSFT has lost--for illegal activities to build and maintain a monopoly? It wasn't darwin where the best the product won. MS is a felonious company, a point beyond refute.

Nice to see Winfo now has an RSS feed, but just so you know it's broken.

What a lot of Sh#t these days, this article have hurt the ego of some people in here. Windows every day is more secure. There are not any OS free of bugs. When Linux and/or MAC have the 50% of the market we're gonna start to talk fair comparisons about security problems. Bad english, sorry

The only stupid people on this page are the ones bashing Paul becuase he says Microsoft Windows is secure. Do none of you think that he may just say this kinda of stuff becuase it keeps a "special" type of audience coming back for more. I will admit I find some of the comments absurd but I assume he means them to be that way.

One of the Windows's problems in general security problems, is the typical non expert user, and there are a lot of them. If you compare: most of Linux users are OS experts while Windows users are not commonly experts about this topic.

We're pleased with the fact that many linux fans are visiting the Windows fans pages

...And MAC fans

The only stupid people on this page are the ones bashing Paul becuase he says Microsoft Windows is secure. Do none of you think that he may just say this kinda of stuff becuase it keeps a "special" type of audience coming back for more. I will admit I find some of the comments absurd but I assume he means them to be that way. ---- Oh so you pretty much just conceded that MS Security and Stability is utter BS .. and those words should only be used in the same sentence to aggravate/entertain the growing Mac userbase? So, why are you still using an inferior platform? Besides playing video games.. pfft.

Another question,if you were to hire a software security expert, would you hire from microsoft's security team or Apple's security team? Experience goes a long way.

Damn, someone should make a spam filter for this site! It's simply unbelievable how many idiots are posting comments here.

....Stockholm Syndrome....

The only reason that Microsoft has 95% market share is that evil b**st*rds rule this world.

So many of you are overawed by Windows success that you fail to see what the truth is. I call it Windows 95 hysteria. Sure, because of a number of factors Windows 95 was a wild success. People foolishly screamed "MONOPOLY!!!" because they saw a lot of Windows on computers. But in actual fact, there really was no Micrsosoft monopoly never was then and none now. Microsoft does not own a platform. It does not sell Microsoft computers with unshared proprietary hardware standards bundled with Microsoft operating systems and bundling only Microsoft software. Apple does hat sort of thing. Sun does. But Microsoft does not. Microsoft COMPETES on a platform. Apple's operating systems division doesn't have to compete. Sun's Solaris division doesn't have to compete. They are bundled to the hardware in true lockouts .. true monopolies. Back to Microsoft. They compete and they do some bundling to better compete. But the customer is free to download and run any third party player or browser. There's no lockout. Software is essentially a form of free speech. You write what you want, I write what I want. I don't think people understand that and what it implies. If you don't like Microsoft's book then don't read it - but don't legislate Microsoft on what to or not to write. That's censorship. People need to protect their rights to write the software they want to. If you let these governements get away with censoship then you will lose your rights. Don't be stupid. Writing the software you want to is your right. My right. Microsoft's right. Fight for your rights - whether or not you like Windows Media Player is completely beside the point. The issue is an issue of rights .. freedom of speech.

I wish Mozilla would include the ability to download multi-part attachments in Thunderbird. I hate having to use Outlook Express to get my daily **** fix.

"If Microsoft can secure a system as complex as Windows..." Wow, I literally ****** myself laughing over that one.

iTunes Security != OSX Security A few posts seem to think that iTunes security has a relationshipt with OSX security. This assumption is incorrect. iTunes is available for both Windows and OSX. It is OS agnostic. iTunes is a web based service tied to a client software. The security that is being so called "broke" is the ability to use a non-iTunes client to access the web service. The web service itself still function and requires the user to pay. So, the question is whether the service has been truly broken, or has someone just been innovative enough to develop a smart enough client to work within the boundaries of the service? I would compare this to Samba SMB versus Microsoft's native SMB. Yes, Samba can interact with Windows file shares, but deep down, it isn't exactly the same and is always playing catchup. Apple could easily put a stop to this by one simple step. They could release a version of iTunes for Linux. This would take most of the sail out of the developer's wind. Also, note: Use of a non-approved iTunes Music Service client can mean a loss of iTunes Music Service account, since it is against the account's priviledges. I would look for Apple to enforce this issue if it continues to be a problem. Without an account, one cannot use the "hacked" client.

msgstephen - what you wrote regarding the level of competition that apple and microsoft faces is patently absurd. The idea that apple is somehow immune from competition and has a "true monopoly" completely ignores the fact that apple is under heavy competition from wintel. Wintel almost drove Apple out of business. How exactly is a company not facing competition being driven out of business. This is absurd. As to Microsoft, it does have a monopoly with respect to Windows (or very close to one). Sure, you can buy Apple or Linux, but most people don't. Most businesses need windoes and most consumers think they they do (at least right now). Since the alternatives aren't considered real alternatives by most purchasers, the competition to Microsoft is very attenuated. As to Office, its the same story. Sure, you can buy Wordperfect, but everybody is using Word and Excel. If you want to exchange files with anyone, you have to buy Office. This is particularly true in the business world. The competition to office is very limited. Now all of this could change in the future, but right now the competition to Microsoft is so limited, that Microsoft is able to achieve obscenely high profit rates after expenses. The profits on Windows and Office are in the 85 percent range, after all expenses. These profits run into the billions per year. That's not revenues mind you, it's PROFIT. In a normal competitive market, Microsoft would never be able to earn profits like these. The fact of such high profits itself is proof that Microsoft has an effective monopoly (or at least very very weak competition) with respect to Windows and Office. Of course, Microsoft intends to try to keep in this way. Microsoft's whole business model is based on "you have to have Windows, you have to have Office." And in the future, you "have to use Microsoft's media formats in the living room, car, portable player, etc." If for most users, you "have to have" Microsoft and can't go to a competing supplier, there's little to no competition to Microsoft. YOu need to wake up out of your delusion.

The second iTunes compromise was exactly the same as the first, it is all to do with the encryption key. The gentleman who compromised the system did so the first time with an encryption key that applied to iTunes 4.6. Apple subsequently removed access by iTunes 4.6 to the music store. Unfortunately, the iTunes 4.7 key was also known to / derived by the attacker, and this was used in the second compromise. I suspect that Apple cannot now tell the difference between a genuine iTunes client and the attackers custom application when accessing the music store - the store itself hasn't really been compromised, it can just be used by an unauthorised client.

>If Microsoft can secure a system as complex as Windows... great, now even all windows-users know what you're full of.

>Windows is attacked so often because it controls such a large portion of the market. Period. 1) How many worms, especially really nasty ones that ground the entire planet to a sludgy halt, have propagated by attacking and spreading via Microsoft's web server software? 2) How many more web sites run the open source Apache software instead of Microsoft's? 3) now that you've established that Apache is loads more popular than Microsoft's IIS (and always has been), how many crippling Apache worms have made the evening news in the past decade or so? Just something to think about.

What is "Microsoft Office Outlook Express"? --Szajd

Please Paul, shut down the comment feature. It just fills the page with USELESS comments.

"blah blah blah, Windows is rubbish and Apple are amazing' etc etc. Do any of you actually work with computers? I do - I'm part of a company that supports small to medium businesses that don't have their own IT department. We do Windows - and if it was as crap as you all make out, my life would be hell - i'd be running round all over the place trying to keep things working. I certainly wouldn't have time to write this! That isn't the case. It works - we make it work, because we know what we're doing and we know that Microsoft software is quite capable of remaining secure in an environment where things have been set up right. Can we have some intelligent comment please?

Hey, guy with the apache rant (and his three points). How many security holes make the news for ANY product that isn't windows? Surely you aren't dumb enough to believe that the media isn't biased? Read slashdot, I've read slashdot and the register long enough to know how much hype there is out there. Also, last time I checked there had only been one or two bugs that actually effect the core IIS 7 (and I mean, IIS - not Windows). All those people who do run IIS aren't exactly crippled are they? Their sites seem to stay up.

slashdot + the register = the media please Paul, keep the comment feature, they're too funny to shut down.

>We do Windows - and if it was as crap as you all make out, my life would be hell - i'd be running round all over the place trying to keep things working. I certainly wouldn't have time to write this! If you'ld do osX you wouldn't have a job. >Microsoft software is quite capable of remaining secure in an environment where things have been set up right. You mean far away from an internet connection.

To the person who wrote: " msgstephen - what you wrote regarding the level of competition that apple and microsoft faces is patently absurd. " No no .. you need to get over Microsoft. It is one company. Except if you want to count XBox it owns no computer platform and by the definition of monopoly it can't possible be one as it doesn't not control the entire product start to finish. You have Win95 hysteria. IBM fumbled with OS/2, Linux was much too raw and the general public was ready to compute. Windows 95 seemingly everywhere. But it was not a monopoly. Not at all. No government decree or law saying one had to use Microsoft and no other .. .. and no lack of choice. One could choose any number of operating systems to run on the x86 platform. The best choice for most people was Windows 95. Besides, Microsoft doesn't own the platform, it competes on it. Heck, even Sun - a computer maker - makes x86s and serves them up with Solaris pre-installed. With FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux in all its varieties, Be, Free-DOS, and many many more all x86 compatible, Microsoft has a heck of a lot of competition. But people choose Microsoft. It's the best for the x86 platform as far as most people see it. It's what they want. x86 computers with Linux pre-installed were sold at Walmart. Not too many people bought it and many that did scrapped off linux and put on Windows. Freedom. Freedom of choice. You're just piffed because most people choose Windows. You scream monopoly .. but there is none. File sharing. When I design a word processor am I obliged to make sure the file format is compatible with some Linux based Word processor? No. Why should Microsoft be? If I want to share with Office documents then perhaps I should buy Office. Although it is notable that Microsoft offers for free an MS Word document READER for free. It enables people who do not have Word to read and print Word documents. But that is beside the point. You put too much at Microsoft's doorstep. All these things you think they are obliged to do and be, they are simply not obliged to do or be. Anyone can do the same as they on x86 platform. They can write an operating system for it. Write word processors for it. Sell their stuff and so on. If people don't choose to buy it that is not Microsoft's problem. Microsoft is very successful and makes a big profit. They have every right to make a big profit. And that is a good thing and translates into health and wealth for many people. It's just that you begrudge it. Get over Microsoft. It is just one company which, in fact, does well in the face a heck of a lot of competition - competition that would usurp them at the drop of a fedora.

Do any of you actually work with computers? I do - I'm part of a company that supports small to medium businesses that don't have their own IT department ----- great.. so you don't want computers that work to become popular or you'll be out of a job, NEXT

mgssteven.. do you think you're clever? 95% marketshare is not a monopoly? there isn't much competition because software is the reason you select a particular platform.. and developers might only develop for one platform.. so you have a top heavy market where TONS of developers write for WIndows.. and then maybe only a handful write for Mac OS X (extreme example... there are 18,000 apps for Mac OS X).. So that means there are hundreds of thousands of windows apps (most people only get a couple hehe) so once a dominant platform is established, the competition is over.. just because its open architecture doesnt mean MS is fighting tooth and nail with Linux.. most people would NEVER consider Linux.. EVER. It's the opposite of user friendly.. the opposite of what people need.

No. 95% is not a monopoly. It is overwhemingly successful, but not a monopoly. And Microsoft doesn't have 95% of the marketshare, neither. First off, Microsoft doesn't sell any of these computers. It sellings a software package that runs on them. So at *most* it has only half the market - the software half. But it doesn't even have that. Linux advocates claim that Linux is running a good 5% of the home desktop x86 computer and 20% of the work server x86 computers. Many website x86 computers run Apache software on Linux with Microsoft providing all of the mouse or maybe not even that. That is hardly a monopoly - that's an environment where Microsoft has to compete. See, you are equating success in one venue with monopoly. You have Win95 hysteria. But you are wrong. You say the competition is over. I doubt they say that over at Mandrake or at SunGuard or at RedHat, or at Oracle, or at Redhat, or at Sun Microsystems. They certainly don't say that at Real nor Apple. Not even at Corel. Don't be weak in your thinking - you'll lose your rights to people who are.

First off, Microsoft doesn't sell any of these computers. It sellings a software package that runs on them. So at *most* it has only half the market - the software half -- Oh it doesn't own the market it's not competing in? Why are you wasting your time with this drivel.. Ahh, like I said.. most people only buy a handful of programs. Apple gets all the big name apps, for most people's needs.. but if you're a developer and you can't afford to write for 4 platforms. what will you do.. uh. go with the one that has 90% share.. duh! So the fact that it's open architecture doesn't matter. what matters is who can get to a MAJORITY SHARE first, then developers just produce for one platform, and momentum leads to a near-monopoly.. wait a minute. EVERYONE knows this. what's going on here.. why are you arguing w me?! that's nice that the guys at RedHat.. are having success with the words CHEAP and SOFTWARE.. as for Apple.. they're actually making a ton of money, they'll be the ones pushing MS to 'innovate' not Linux. and with $500 computers, Apple might even.. *gasp get a little respect from the 'how-low-can-you-go' crowd that wants to buy a 300 dollar PC and spend $500 a year on maintenance..

Yeah, developers develop for the most used platform first. But why is it the most used platform? Because Microsoft strong armed PC makers to put their OS on them? If I was a PC maker you wouldn't have to strong arm me. Windows works. If linux serves the server market and goverments and Windows serves the vast majority desktops, who does Mac serve? Nuts.

On some other news... "hack a mac" contest has been canceled... I ONLY WONDER WHY ? Apple has like 5% of the market... get real guys! And yes, I know what I'm talking about...

But then what is your point, eh? A developer will always be limited in the number of platforms she or he can write for. I don't get your point? You're in a Catch 22? No matter what, developers will reach a limit to how many platforms they can support - so what? Why should Microsoft be punished or treated badly for that fact of life?

they shouldn't. Bill Gates said, way before MS was into OS's, that a Natural monopoly would be the best case for developers, of course, having only one platform is best for all.. But.. that's alot of power.. it should be regulated, of course.. that's just too much power for one company to have.. MS isn't being punished for WIndows.. they're being punished/criticized for using THAT monopoly to leverage other products by linking them to the OS.. MSN messenger--> hotmail--> IE--> MSN search.. there's a long list of companies that are about to die because MS has the Windows leverage again.. why am i saying this.. everyone knows this... ***** what's my point? That MS, for all intents and purposes, has a monopoly. you're the only one who can't accept that. Windows works? *yikes pass the pipe

> Windows works? *yikes pass the pipe How does it not work for you? I use it everyday with no problems.

>But people choose Microsoft. It's the best for the x86 platform as far as most people see it. It's what they want. No it's not, it's the stuff they have at the office, so at home they want the same thing, because they already know a bit about it. 90% of the people you're refferring to don't even know what a platform or x86 is, they shop microsoft because it's the only thing they know.

Again, you put too much at Microsoft's doorstep. Microsoft produces and sells software. If what you say about people's ignorance is true, if people want to use computers yet remain ingnorant about the computer world, that is their problem not Microsoft's. Besides, I think * a heck * of a lot of people know full well that there are other computer platforms out there e.g. Apple but for a variety of reasons choose not to buy them for the office nor at home and instead get x86 computers and Windows. But , again, even if they do not know that there are other platforms that is not Microsoft's problem. Microsoft sells software, they don't run the educational system. If after eleven or twelve years of public schooling an American or European or Canadian can't think straight enough to figure that they should shop around when making any major purchasing decision, is that Microsoft's fault? I don't think so. You put too much at one copmany's doorstep.

Waaaaaaaah. Paul trashed my pet OS. I'm going home and curl up in a ball and cry my eyes out. Get a life guys/gals

Microsoft should be credited for the position they are in. They made smart decisions at the right time and it has led to them controlling the industry. But they do have a monopoly. Consumers purchase Windows because it's all they know, businesses purchase Windows and Office without even thinking about it because they have no viable alternatives. Is it because there aren't products as good or better? I doubt many would say Windows is a better OS than OS X, so why does OS X only have 5% of the market share while Windows is at 90%+? Well, because they have monopoly power. Look no further than IE to see Microsoft's power. Many sites don't follow the web standards and instead build their sites to work only with IE. Why do you think this is? Ever wonder why Microsoft developed Internet Explorer so fervently while competing with Netscape and then stopped development once they dominated the market? They all but ran their competition out of business and then left their users exploring the web with a browser made of swiss cheese. There are much better browsers out there but Microsoft still dominates the browser market. This is obviously where the problem comes in. There are better products but because of MS's power users are either unaware of such products or can't use them out of fear that they won't be compatible with MS "standards". MS has no incentive to improve their products and the consumer is stuck using an inferior product. If Microsoft had any competition in the OS world there is no way they would've been allowed to get away with such a pourous OS for this long. In any other market everybody would've run away screaming from such a product but in the IT industry these people have nowhere to go. Macs are an excellent option for home use but many are still scared to make the jump. It will be even longer before they are viable for business use. Once again, not because they are inferior but because Microsoft owns the IT field. So while I don't think Microsoft has done anything illegal to obtain their monopoly status it is still a status that they hold, and it's definitely not something that's best for the consumer.

No, they do not have a monopoly. Do you have to have it spelled out for you? A monopoly is where one company controls the entire product and service from beginning to end. In computers, or at least the x86 platfrom, for Microsoft to have a monopoly they would have to ccontrol the production of the computers, what software goes on them, their sale and their delivery. Microsoft in no way has that much control. It is just one company competing on the platform. And it has plenty of competitors. You have Win95 hysteria. Get over Microsoft. It is just one company and doesn't really "control" anything save their own stuff. And with this Euro censorship nonsense I wonder if they even control their own software anymore. Don't worry, their loss of rights is only your loss of rights.

I said MS deserved credit for the position they are in but you can't deny they have monopolistic power. If you don't want to believe me then all you have to do is pull up Google, type in "Microsoft Monopoly" and educate yourself. And stop with your stupid Win95 hysteria crap. Win95 was fine before the net took off and everybody had their computers flooded with malware. I, like so many others, bought Win95 because it was the best option. That is no longer the case yet MS's market share is still greater than 90%. Why do you think that is?? Why do you think 90% of users use IE despite the fact that it's inferior to a number of other browsers feature-wise and that's not even considering the major security issues IE presents. While I think MS Office is the best office suite on the market and deserves to be the leader that doesn't take away from the fact that it's the only option for anyone needing to share documents. MS has people locked in, if you think that's a good thing then that's your choice. I think it stymies innovation and competition. I used to think just like you and defended Microsoft, because I really do think they did a better job than others and their business model is outstanding. But as a fan of technology it's impossible for me to be a fan of MS in it's current state.

We got one virus this past year (actually since 2000 - that's five years). It was through the Java hole in Mozilla's Firefox 1.0 So much for MSIE's inferiority. I *can* deny Microsoft has monopolistic power. I can't deny thay are a heavy weight, but they are not a monopoly, not even if you limit the field to OSes on x86s alone. Even there there is PLENTY of competition, especially in the x86 server market. Don't be Win95'd. Sure, Windows is very popular. But don't confuse popular with monopoly. Microsoft has no power to stop anyone from using an entirely different system of software on the x86 platform, therefore it has no monopoly. And many people and companies do choose other than Microsoft on that platform. You need to get your terms straight. You need to stopped being overawed with Windows popularity in the home market and you need to get over Microsoft because it is just one company that has to work very hard to stay on top. They have loads of competition in every market - even the home market where they've being doing best in. And there is a reason for that. Microsoft actually thinks for the home user - unlike the system designed by the Linux people who are condencending and expect the user to be an old hat at the UNIX commandline and a wiz at editing long config files - or like Apple which until recently has priced itself right out of the market. Geesh :)

I haven't had a single virus/trojan the last 10 years, heck I never even had anti-virus-sofware, or firewalls etc... I also haven't used windows in 10 years. I would also like to warn microsoft that even überfanbois like msgstephen are using firefox which is the best proof of MSIE's inferiority.

msgstephen, congratulations on not having any viruses. I'm guessing you haven't had any spyware or adware also? I wish my parents and my wife's parents and my brothers and my friends and my friends friends, whose computers I have to clean up every month could say the same thing. Should I really have to run 3 different adware/spyware scans just to get the PC to work again?? Of course 2 weeks later the computer is infested again and they are unable to use it until I come over again. I have rebuilt their computers multiple times but eventually they get themselves in trouble again. I have never had any such problems, but I work in IT and know what not to do, but these are average users and no matter how much I try to educate them they still end up in trouble. Do you think this is the way a computer should work?? I sure as hell don't. Many people just turn off their computers and wait until someone can fix them before they attempt to use them again. My question to you, which still hasn't been answered, is why don't these people, instead of turning off their computers, go out and load a different operating system on it? As you say there are so many alternatives so it should be easy to just dump Windows and find something that's more useful, right? If you bought a Sony TV that worked for a week or two and then had to have a repairman come out every month to get it working properly again do you think you would stick with that TV or would you go looking for a different TV? I guarantee you Sony wouldn't be in the TV business for long because users have viable alternatives when it comes to buying a TV. Windows doesn't have real competition or most people would've stopped running it long ago. But yea, keep telling yourself that Windows dominates because it's such a great product. Maybe if you say it enough it might come true?

It's easy: Set the Internet security level higher. For the odd legitmate site where you want the script to run, put it in your trusted zone But have the Trusted zone set higher than default to about Medium+ Don't allow MSIE to auto install 3rd party extensions. Don't open attachments not expected and scan the ones you save to disk before opening them. Patch And that's about it. In the past ten years I got one virus when I ignored a bulletin to patch Win2000 if i had IIS installed. My bro got one just this past month which I had to clean up because he was surfing with Firefox and it had that java hole. Figure it out. If you let everybody run their scripts and code and if you open every attachment and install any ol' screensaver it won't be long .. but it would be the same with UNIX. If these same people had UNIX they still would open every attachment and insist on running the scripts and Java and comet screensaver of every website. BTW WinXP SP2 has significantly reduced the number of bot machines running out there, reardless of their owners propensity to download and run everything.

One of the major problems with Windows has always been the ability for software to be installed without the use of a password or other form of authentication. Many people are installing software that they never intended to install. At least in Unix you would have to type your password to give the app permission to install. It might seem like a small safeguard but it makes a huge difference. Obviously the registry is another disaster when it comes to Windows' current problems. SP2 has improved things somewhat but people are still getting hammered with adware. Besides, your excuses for MS are also proof of their pseudo-monopoly. If they had any competition there is no way Windows would be under attack the way it is. Hackers know that Windows is the only operating system worth attacking so that's where their target is.

Microsoft has a monopoly with Windows because Linux fanatics attack it? Give me a break. There's no monopoly - just a lot of people who, fueled by Win95 hysteria, just want to see one. Some are ultra-left-wing nuts who hate the word profit, some are Linux lovers who will do anything to knock Microsoft. Some are just plain angry, and yet others are those who didn't get everything they wanted from Microsoft in some dealing. Great success in competition is not a monopoly. When there's a list of competitors as long as my arm there is no monopoly. When SUN presinstalls Solaris on x86 workstations and sells them, there you have absolute proof there is no Microsoft monopoly.