Technoman said - "if your careful, Windows can be just as secure."

My point exactly - you actually need to add additional third party virus checkers / firewalls and anti-malware for windows to be even remotely secure - and this is completely reliant on third party input for virus definitions. If I had spent my hard earned dollars on a product such as this I wouldn't expect that the first thing I needed to do was to patch up the security issues by installing third party software.

Historically see more windows lack of security has caught many windows users out - Even more recently there have been reports of a massive global network of compromised PC's serving as a supercomputer for the distribution and relaying of malware, spam, etc... I wonder why - couldn't be anything to do with the complete vulnerability of the windows OS??? YUP!!!

If windows really was more secure than Linux it would not need these additional measures.

Linux lack of virus's has little to do with market share or the want of hackers - it has everything to do with the fact that the architecture is inherently secure - for the reason's I have mentioned before.

There may be less Linux installations per capita, but of these many are of a mach larger magnitude than comparible windows installs. (corporate servers / web servers etc) They provide much more desirable targets to hack. There is much more Kudos for the average hacker to infiltrate the linux platform than re-releasing another variation on an old worm.

Kudos is everything to a hacker.