A few points to address in what you're saying. > It's fair to say Microsoft doesn't have a great track record over the last several decades with security of th

A few points to address in what you're saying. > It's fair to say Microsoft doesn't have a great track record over the last several decades with security of their flagship OS. Nope, not fair or accurate at all. Their track record has been great, and it's likely you are judging them for transparency mixed with a reputation from >20 years ago. They have a good record of patching security holes; if we all assumed that more patches = worse security, it would only incentivize companies to be quiet. As for development, again over the past decade, they've been completely different from the past, and are fully embracing and pushing best practices. As other commenters like to point out, this is not your grandpa's microsoft. > but in my opinion still nowhere near as bulletproof as it should be). Assuming that security should be bulletproof is a misunderstanding of how security works.