I can tell you that the rollout of the new XP machines was postponed when every time they'd pull a new box out, set it up and go out to download all the latest and greatest patches, the machine would be infected by a virus. Yeppers, XP's wont to announce to the Web World that it was there was the problem. It said "hello, here I am" and almost every virus floating out there said "Well....Hello, little XP - want some candy?"

And every time MS announces a security patch, they tell all the little hacker wannabes how to hack through the hole that the patch is for. So, some little dweeb writes some code and we can't get to the 'Net for a day because our Systems area has slammed everything down until they can get the patch propagated out.

frustrated? yeah, a little....

>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1358058,00.asp
>With vulnerabilities in its newest—and supposedly more secure—products piling up and users growing more frustrated with patches and updates, Microsoft Corp. is launching an effort to re-energize its Trustworthy Computing campaign.
>
>Are users really getting frustrated over security? Maybe I'm immune to it all. But I don't think anyone around my office has ever made a security centric complaint, and I know none of my customers running Microsoft OSs have never brought it up to me.
>
>Lately I've been under the impression that security is way too over rated in the industry. I do think that its a good thing for Microsoft to be pulled into the security circus, but there are down sides. They look worse for it when its really a non-issue to most people, and in some cases the usability and functionality of their software suffers by changing their products to accomodate complaints (which, interestingly enough has resulted in more complaints that I can actually attest to).
>
>Anyone care to chime in some personal experiences or something?