OS X is actually a descendant of Unix, having a strong influence from BSD (via something else Jobs did before rejoining Apple). Windows had implemented some POSIX compliance at one time. I'm not sure if it's still lurking in there, but it was back in XP. Being POSIX compliant, however, doesn't necessarily have to do with security.
Still, if windows is less secure than it should or could be, that makes other systems less "vulnerable" in comparison. Plus, the basic structure of the 'Nixes is more secure in general.
It wasn't about what the underlying OS was. It was -and is -about vulnerability to backdoors and exploits.
Very easy to talk of viruses but most of them exploit existing unpatched vulnerabilities. Anyone looking at security bulletins week-in and week-out will see enough of them on many Unix based environments as well.
There's enough misinformation around. Specific products existed and exist because of the way Root id gives permissions to execute anything on *ix platform. Windows security has actually improved and bypassed *ix systems because of its granularity levels.
The vulnerability with Windows that you mostly see is with the applications developed on it. Where application or OS security is given such short shrift, it's hilarious -unless you're facing the brunt of it.
If the same developers developed on *ix platform expect no different.
People are people.
/Last post on this topic, we've veered fairly off-topic. :-D
/Have had it with arguments on windows being less secure and *ix being more. This FUD debate is just the worst thing for information security.
Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk