Edit: You're comical to the point of absurdity.

> The truth is Windows has had some remote vulnerabilities in regard to fonts rendering and such but they are very difficult to exploit (and I haven't heard of any circulating in the wild exploits).

You say absurd things like 'Secondly, it's a myth that Windows must be updated to stay secure. It's such a huge myth it's actually cringe worthy.', then in the same comment talk about how actually there are pretty serious remote vulnerabilities that don't require user interaction (or some, like clicking something), but that's OK because "I haven't heard of any circulating in the wild exploits".

:')

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2969896/microsoft-subnet...

https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/one-font-vu...

http://wccftech.com/december-patch-tuesday-fixes-zero-day-vu...

http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/h...

-----

> You took just one item on the list to attack without even giving valid sound arguments

The onus is on you to explain why protecting your machine with security updates is a bad thing. Making up statistics and misunderstanding basic security concepts doesn't count as an argument.

> Again in 99% of cases users get infected by downloading shady files from the net or opening unrequested e-mail attachments. Windows updates will NEVER save you from that.

That's so stupid it's laughable. Here's one case: the user downloads a malformed .docx file that would cause a buffer overflow in Word and compromise their machine, but instead the horrible Microsoft overlords shoved unneeded security updates down their poor throats and instead Word just displayed a message that the file is corrupted.

I bet that user then thinks to themselves "Damn you Microsoft and you're oppressive security update regime! I opened the damn file, I want to be infected!".

> I'm attempting to say that the user is given no freedom to choose when and if to install updates.

Good, security ones need to be always installed right away. Average Joe doesn't give a flying f* about patch management, he doesn't want to get hit by the latest exploit out in the wild.

> MS keeps on releasing broken updates which render thousands of PCs broken. If you're OK with that then I'm fine.

Citation needed. Also thousands out of what, 1.25 billion? I'll take those percentages any day, a hell of a lot better than most companies. MS also has an absolutely ridiculous patch testing setup involving tens of thousands of versions of windows across lots of different hardware. But of course that doesn't matter to a zealot.

> Secondly, it's a myth that Windows must be updated to stay secure. It's such a huge myth it's actually cringe worthy.

That's the crux of it isn't it. Ignorance. How can you type that with a straight face? By all means keep rolling around with an unpatched Windows machine, thinking this is 1999 where the biggest threat is internet worms spreading via open ports and hoping your cheap, exploit-infested router running the cheapest, oldest software they could find is going to help you.

> And if you're stupid enough to rely on MS Security Essentials then I will stop arguing with you. That's not an AV - that's a huge hole.

Microsoft's efforts with Essentials are commendable, how can you not see that. If you've got 1.25 billion active devices running Windows and even 25% of those don't run any form of antivirus (I'm positive the number is much higher than that) then that's 312,500,000 unprotected machines. Releasing a free antivirus that's effective 90% of the time is a great thing to do for internet security as a whole.

But hey, just ignore that and keep lambasting them for whatever bad experiences you had with Windows.