I am well aware of what I said in those first posts... and one of them was the following:
Apple is endeavoring (as is Microsoft) to be proactive instead of reactive.
As you can see, if you read and comprehend, that I said both companies are attempting to fix problems before they occur. That is a far cry from "...for M$ (sic) that doesn't count." (Please note that I don't use the slur "M$" when referring to Microsoft, but you do... I avoid it because I wish I could make the kind of money Microsoft does providing a product that so many people use, even if I think there are better products out there.)
I then shifted focus of my comments (That's why there are things called paragraphs... to separate different ideas from each other in written form) from detecting and repairing vulnerabilities to the difference it would make if actual exploits appeared in the wild rather than a vulnerability when I said:
Now when you can come back and show an EXPLOIT in the wild, maybe something like the exploit that brought down over 400,000 Windows 2000 computers last week, rather than discovered vulnerabilities, then we'll talk.
There is no circular logic... the meaning and intent was exactly as was written... if someone can show us a Mac exploit in the wild that we need to worry about, THEN we will take action to prevent it. That may include installing updates (such as was needed to close this vulnerability) or purchasing and installing anti-virus software, which is, as of now, totally unnecessary on a Macintosh running OSX.
If you inferred some slur to Microsoft in what I posted, its probable source is that portion of your mind that insists on using "M$" to represent the company that makes your operating system in YOUR writing and not what I wrote.
Even if you did erroneously infer some slur to your favorite OS in what I wrote, why did you take it so personally???
As I said that's not a "fair" question. That's like saying let me know my custom OS that I wrote isn't secure after it's had 400,000 machines attacked...of course I'm the only one running a version of it, so the most that it could be attacked is 1. Mac is similiar. As I stated numerous times. An unpatched Mac at a certain build level on the internet doesn't make for a good target for a hacker. In addition to that, you'll now dismiss it out of hand because Apple already released a patch but the user was too dump to apply it.
If you plan to keep Mac safe, you better hope it doesn't become a popular OS. Linux types used to have the same attitude you had and they quickly did an about face once they got large enough.
And you are still ignoring the obvious apples to oranges comparisons you're making between Mac and windows. Windows comparisions are based on unpatched machines and Mac are patched. in that scenario I'd take a Mac too.