Thanks for the source. I think using that that something is "more vulnerable" is misleading though. Do we really think that 8_32 is 4 times more vulnerable tha

Thanks for the source. I think using that that something is "more vulnerable" is misleading though. Do we really think that 8_32 is 4 times more vulnerable than 8_64? Isn't it more likely that 64-bit users are less likely to run random malware? Of course I definitely agree that XP is "less secure" and everyone should be planning to move away from it. But for a well-managed corporate network it just doesn't seem like such a big deal as MS are making out.