Is Windows less of a security risk?

Whenever Matt Asay roams beyond open source into security he usually shows that he speaks from his open source heart and not his head.  Matt wears his open source passion on his sleeve and consequently it colors everything he sees.  So when Jeff Jones, strategy director of Microsoft's security technology unit, shows that Windows users faced fewer days of security risks on average last year than users of Apple, Novell, Red Hat and Sun, Matt has a cow. How could the evil empire be more secure than his open source darlings, let alone his own OS of choice OSX. 

Matt's evidence to back this up is the fact (he tells us twice) that he has not had a single security risk (in his opinion I guess, I wonder if he was at CanSec West) or security breach in over 5 years.  He then runs the tired "if Microsoft had any record of security" stuff.  Hey Matt, take a good look around and take off the open source rose colored glasses.  Microsoft has been serious and working on security for some time and has built a record.  Ask Stephen "Steptoe" Toulose what record Microsoft has. BTW, Microsoft points to a Symantec executive who acknowledges the accuracy of Jones' data.

Frankly, I think there are arguments both ways over which OS is less of a security risk.  I don't mind an informed debate.  What I don't like is the knee jerk reaction of some in the media who are not even familiar with the facts, crucifying Microsoft.  In this case because he does not like their take on open source and what they are doing with the Linux vendors.  Matt, I don't agree with a lot of your views around open source but acknowledge your expertise there, but you have no standing to be speaking about security and tainting the facts with your prejudice against Microsoft.