No such thing as root on a Windows machine.
You also have to realize that the operating system is made for the Home User, a person that isn’t going to utilize permissions and more than likely wouldn’t know how to.
Microsoft really doesn’t have a choice, could you imagine a person who really hasn’t used a computer trying to open a terminal window and using sudo or su to run an install as root?
They have to make the machine easy to use, they have to make it so people can install software easily.
Linux doesn’t have that burden, then again, that’s one of the reasons that Linux hasn’t taken off as a real competitor to MS in the home user market.
So no matter what, it’s always going to be the user that is the biggest security risk in Windows and any other computer operating system.
Yes, there is. It's called "Administrator"
They have to make the machine easy to use, they have to make it so people can install software easily.
No, they don't. If a person can't handle a tool, they shouldn't be operating that tool. That applies to arc welders and OSes. The biggest problem we have today is the fact that people who don't know how or are incapable of running the tool are actually running it--and affecting everyone around them.
But Microsoft gave the liquor and the car keys to the teenage driver.
Apple installers do this and make things painless. You know the app needs access to install, so you have to type in your password into a dialog that pops up. They have to make the machine easy to use, they have to make it so people can install software easily.
That doesn't mean all software apps should be able to write anywhere on the disk. Maybe a user should be able to install a software app locally that won't affect other users if it blows up. Maybe there should be an administrative task that backs up data to an area of the filesystem that isn't accessible to a user-level app.
Microsoft has many smart people. They could architect themselves out of their security problem if they weren't hampered with backward compatibility.
Linux doesn’t have that burden, then again, that’s one of the reasons that Linux hasn’t taken off as a real competitor to MS in the home user market.
Linux needs only one thing: hardware support. If you install Linux and it doesn't recognize a device, you're screwed. The vendors don't support Linux, and marginal hardware is everywhere. Linux already has every app a home user needs. It has a wow-factor with compiz/beryl. It has an easy to use GUI (more than 2 actually). It has good development software. It's easy to install apps in most distros now. There is really no features holding Linux back.
Windows Administrator == OS X root.
OS X Administrator == sort-of like the old Windows Power User, except it's actually useful.
The standard out-of-the-box on a Mac and PC have you running as Administrator. On the PC this means full control to destroy the box. On the Mac you still need root to destroy it, and almost nobody runs root normally (it's actually disabled by default).