Security holes are only found by those looking for them. If most hackers (both good and bad) are focused on Windows, that's where the bulk of reported bugs are going to be found.
There are some obvious areas that Microsoft screwed up. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but I remember they used to ship Windows with the personal web server turned on by default, with all the associated ports open and responding to pings. It was basically an open invitation to anybody out there who might be listening. Stupid.
MS has gotten much better about security updates. Windows Update has fixes posted regularly now. It doesn't take long for patches to appear once a flaw has been exposed.
You can trust in the fact that if Apple were running the same type of business as Microsoft, they'd be suffering just as much. There are two very different business models at play here, so Apple has a much easier time with certain aspects of their products.
As I said previously, there have been times in the past when I've considered alternatives to Windows, even the PC platform. I usually rule out Macs once I've pieced together what I want and compare prices for comparable performance from a Mac. DAYV's note about a $3000 Sony is a bad representation of the PC landscape. Ever notice that most Sony products are overpriced? Their PCs are no different. An equivalent Dell would probably be $1000 less.
I tried Linux for a while about five years ago. Mandrake distro. Very difficult to get running properly, and once I realized how dependent I was on several Windows apps, I couldn't make a permanent switch. Besides, it kept crashing whenever I used Netscape. Surprise, surprise, the stability of Linux gets flushed down the toilet once you ask it to perform in a consumer environment with consumer-level stresses. Linux is one of those things that the media has blown up into something it's not. It will never replace Windows because once it can do everything Windows does, it will be just as bloated and just as unstable. You can't accommodate everyone's needs and still be lean and mean.
The thing I like best about the PC platform is that I can pick and choose exactly what components I want, right down to the brand of RAM I install. It does take a lot of research, and it's certainly easier for the average user to buy a Mac and do their thing. The market tapped by Apple is a valid one, and I don't look down upon those who would rather buy a box that works so they can spend more time doing things that matter, like playing with their kids or playing video games.
I agree with you 100% that the support structure for PC users simply isn't there. It's up to the company building the machine to help you out, and most are simply incapable of doing so. That's why I like building my own machines. Things rarely go wrong because I make better choices than a manufacturer trying to maximize profits and minimize costs. I buy top-flight hardware and I avoid installing every piece of garbage software I find online. When I do have a problem, it's usually not tough to figure out the cause because I put the thing together and I'm the only one who makes changes. Most people don't have the skill, time, or inclination for such things, and I can't fault them for that.
I take my car to a garage because I don't have the desire to bang around inside the engine when something goes wrong. Could I learn? Sure. But I don't want to, so I trust the mechanic at the dealer to do his job and keep my car running. Most people look at PCs the same way I look at cars. No interest whatsoever in knowing how it does what it does; they just want it to do it.
As for the Brazilian government, keep in mind that cost is a huge factor in many Linux implementations. Large groups can save millions by dropping Windows and its associated applications, both of which carry hefty license fees. Having worked with inept middle and upper management for the last five years, I can tell you that they're not swayed by performance, but by political relationships and money. Tell them they'll save a bunch of money, and they'll go for it--as long as it doesn't piss off too many people.
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK, here's why Microsoft products are bad:
They have to sell software for two kinds of people. There's the companies who own huge multi-processed servers, and there's the regular pc user, people who use computers at home to play games, listen to music, maybe write some spreadsheets. So, they gotta sell two different OS versions, and both must have the same look and feel. Now, they can't sell only one OS at the same price: if they sell it too low, they'll bakrupt. If they sell it too high, home computer users will migrate to linux and mac. So, you create two versions, but how can you justify to some company with a server NOT to buy a windows98, but to buy an expensive win2003 server license? Well, you make sure the SERVER version is stable (and it is), and make sure the home version is BUGGY and slow and crappy. Get it?
A very invalid comparison considering Windows 98 is seven years old and an extrememly different piece of software from Windows 2003 Server, which is the latest and greatest. You may as well compare Mac OS X to OS 6.3 or whatever. Nevermind also that the "professional" level Windows OS (Windows NT) and the "consumer" version (Windows 95/98/ME) were very different products under the hood--with very different levels of reliability--until the backbone of Windows 2000 (which was actually the next version of Windows NT, not Win98 as the name would imply) was incorporated into Windows XP. Windows 98 was absolute garbage, and I hated using it. WinME was no better, being based on the same kernel as 95/98. Now, XP Home, XP Pro, and Win2k3 Server are very similar at their cores (based on the NT codebase), and all are very stable and reliable.