I think we're forgetting that all OSs have security flaws, including the fabulously stable and virus-free OSX. Single User Mode might be useful, but unless you know you need it, you don't, and for those that have no idea it'ss even there, it represents a security risk, especially if their computer is in a "public" place. Microsoft does release a lot of patches . . . too many, in my opinion. Yet some of this can't be blamed solely on them. Hackers hack Windows because 90% of people use it. That makes them a BIG and EASY target, considering the average computer user knows nothing of windows update or virii . . . If Linux were to replace Windows as the OS of choice, I imagine that it would require more frequent updates than it has now (in so much as it "has" them already, since they don't exactly "patch" Linux). Sure, Apple releases a patch/update no more frequently than once a month, and that makes MS look terrible, but look at how many people are actively trying to hack or infect OSX . . . they simply don't have the reason to fix something wrong . . . MS is trying to better its image (and deflect a new lawsuit, which I hope they win . . . I'm a Microsoft fan, personally), but releasing much-needed (sometimes) patches only monthly to save face is a worse idea. I agree that shipping a product with known flaws is a big no-no, but since everyone does it, why should Microsoft be attacked for it?
Z