http://www.juiceapac.com/solutions

No doubt about it, switching desktop operating systems across an enterprise the size of Google is a massive undertaking. There's just so much to take care of. It's a move that's far more complicated and disruptive than simply uninstalling one operating system and installing another. And the direct product costs are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the overall costs when you consider things like tech support, user training and so on.

I can only assume that Google was well aware of all this and made an informed business decision. If that is the case, should the rest of us consider it a warning sign that we should heed?

Let's take a rational look at some of the factors involved here. And I'll point out that I have absolutely no direct contact with Google on this, so I'm merely making some guesses from an outsider's perspective.

For starters, Google seems to be reacting at least in part to the recently publicized attacks it experienced. From those reports, it appears that the attackers were able to exploit old browser configurations (Internet Explorer 6) at Google to gain their initial access to the company. Of course, it sure shouldn't surprise anyone reading this column that running a vulnerable browser can lead to significant problems.

Aside from that, wouldn't it be cheaper to simply upgrade these vulnerable browsers, or even switch to a different browser, than replace the entire operating system? It's got to be cheaper to switch browsers than it is to replace desktop operating systems across an entire company.

Next, does anyone really believe that OS X or Linux are inherently more secure than Windows? Seriously? I believe I'm safer on OS X than I would be on Windows, but let's not confuse secure with safe.

Consider doing something that is inherently risky -- say, walking around with a wad of cash stuffed in your pocket that's so large it's obvious, and without anything to protect yourself. That's just crazy, right?

Now, if you're carrying that cash while walking down a quiet country lane, you're far safer than if you were walking through crowded city streets in a foreign land where you glaringly stood out. Safer, but not more secure.

That's the difference between secure and safe, but how does it apply to switching operating systems? You may feel that an operating system other than Windows is more secure because there have been fewer published successful attacks and malware for that other operating system. That could well be a legitimate concern. But I'd argue that neither Linux nor OS X is inherently any more secure than Windows. They tend to be safer because there are far fewer attacks and malware aimed at them, at least today.