No ? If I were a sysadmin and would realize that you use your powerbook to deliberately release viruses into my corporate's network, I'd know who is about to become extinct.

The biggest problem with your approach is that the basic assumption is just plain wrong: that viruses and worms can do any significant harm to M$. Apart from the fact that this cannot be true because otherwise XP would never have come into existence (M$ should have become extinct by then), you'll have to admit that the decision for an operating system is governed by more factors than just security (actually, security is generally considered as at least manageable). Much more important are things like TCO, compatibility to what we have, and acceptance by the users (as an example, the city of Munich (Germany, old Europe) has just decided to delay the introduction of Linux to give users time to first get used to OpenOffice in an environment they know...)
So, no matter how many viruses you thrust upon M$ users, they'll just go on and update their virus definitions (or not). But to make them switch, you need better arguments.

cheers,
pink

I do not deliberately release viruses. I merely make no attempt to look for them. There is a big difference. The police for example cannot require citizens to help them hunt down criminals. By the way, if you were a system admin, the computers would belong to the company, and it would be the company's decision. Require me to install it on my personal Mac however, and you'll find yourself in court.

Viruses and worms have already done significant harm to MS. They are the main reason many people start looking for alternatives. Once they start looking, they find them. That's why Mac and Linux systems have so many new users who used to be PC users.

Yes, there is more than just security involved in an OS choice. Part of the decision is based on what you know. Many people only know MS, so getting them to switch takes time, along with the pressure of problems like viruses. As for TCO, I can't think of a more costly OS than Windoze.

Making them switch isn't what I'm talking about. By not protecting the PC, Mac users merely increase the probability that a PC user will switch, but they don't make PC users switch. Conversely, by protecting the PC, that probability is decreased. I'd rather see it increase.