IMHO the main stress should be put more on the lack of a serious information policy from Redmond, than in the code itself.

Everybody is nowdays aware that worms and viruses exists, and even about the existence of antivirus apps, but many does not even know that they can /and must) regularly patch their systems or that antivirus needs to be updated.

MS has means and resources enough to acomplish the task of teaching the less able user about basic security, not having done this means that MS is negligent in respect with security.

Wasting time talking what would happen if the dominant market share would belong to Linux or PalmOS is void talking. Publishing braindead studies fit for trolls saying that the Operative system X is more insecure than WinXP is misleading the customers into thinking that WinXP is secure or even that insecurity is something which is affecting any other OS in the same way it's actually afecting MS products.

Instead of waisting tons of $$$ in publicizing nonsense about TCO's and other issues of secondary importance MS should have addressed it's publicists and payd writers to literally bomb the user with security iformation and this at a level which any Pete-Lamer would understand.

The question arises, if MS is not more interested in letting the whole system rot with virus and spam crap in oreeder to sell us later the Definitive Solution(TM) (or as the Nazis used to sai "Die Endlösung").