mikedee - 7:33 pm on May 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

Why does this report use different methodologies for calculating Windows vulnerabilities vs. OSX and Linux vulnerabilities (see under 'discovering unfixed vulnerabilities' on page 23).

This study never undertook to compare Linux vs Windows, it only sought to compare XP vs Vista (which is why those 2 are the only ones that share the same methodology and actually show data).

While security improvement for Windows users is the key goal I am examining, it is also interesting to investigate how Windows Vista compares with other current operating systems.

This is where the entire study becomes a bit of a joke, there is no data, just some graphs and a different way of counting bugs. How can you seriously compare 2 different things using different methodologies for reporting them?

I suppose it is no surprise that this marketing report was done by Microsoft for Microsoft.

Here is my scientific study proving that OSX and Linux are one million times as secure as Windows.

Windows viruses in the wild = billions
OSX viruses in the wild = 0
Linux viruses in the wild = 0

That means Windows is infinity less secure than any other OS.