That is flat out wrong and couldn't be further from the truth about security. We can do the starbucks test and see which system is able to get online without issues :-)
But seriously security by obscurity is not any type of real security. Anyone who understands security will laugh at your statement.
Doesn't your "Starbucks test" exploit the router, not the MacBook? What does that prove?
Which one has more successful malware in the wild? What's the ratio, like a hundred thousand to one for distinct viruses?
We can do the starbucks test and see which system is able to get online without issues
In my experience with both, it is much easier to get a Mac on a wireless network than Windows.
But seriously security by obscurity is not any type of real security. ... Anyone who understands security will laugh at your statement.
We're laughing at you since you misunderstand the concept of security through obscurity. Obscurity in this sense means secrecy, that to keep an attacker from knowing something will stop him (passwords and such don't count). For example, to rely on disabling the SSID broadcast (obscurity of the SSID) or MAC address filtering (obscurity of the allowed MAC addresses) on your wireless network for security would be foolish. Once a hacker figures those out, and any decent one can, you're hosed.
However, notice "rely" in bold. Obscurity not solely relied on is not necessarily bad, even good accepted security practice. It's called defense in depth. It is still suggested to disable SSID broadcast and enable MAC filters on your wireless network. You make the hacker's life harder by enabling them, maybe he'll hit the neighbor's wireless network instead since they are broadcasting SSID and don't filter MAC addresses. In the end though you don't rely on them, but on the security of the WPA2 encryption you've enabled.
It's like a wall safe behind the picture. Security experts will say that you shouldn't hide your money in a cubby hole behind a picture, relying on the obscurity of its location for security. But they aren't going to say it's a bad thing to hide your wall safe behind that same picture, relying on the safe for security, with the added layer of protection of the obscurity of its location.
What you are talking about is security through minority, and its existence is debatable. The counter-argument is that all else being equal, a long-standing, widely-popular system by now should have had most of the vulnerabilities found and thus be currently more secure than a less popular system that has not been through its trial of fire.