> That's not really a fair critique.... You need that kind of thing on any platform
This is the boilerplate response to the valid complaint that Windows security is a nightmare. While in theory, other platforms (Linux, BSDs, and idk, OS/400, OS/2, etc.) technically can get infected by viruses, in practice, infection on these platforms would be a vanishingly rare oddity, even compared to the also incredibly rare cases of intrusion.
That said, every major non-Windows platform in its default install configuration is inherently more secure than a Windows system that has had all of its known default security issues addressed, even those beyond what Windows Defender provides. Windows is not simply a more attractive target for malware authors because it is a more popular platform with a larger install base, it is a more popular target because it is inherently insecure, and we know it is inherently insecure because it would be foolish for anyone to run Windows and access the WWW without first addressing its security issues.
It is possible, and likely even probable, that someone could use an unhardened, non-Windows system in its default install configuration for ordinary personal computing for years without ever experiencing the security threats that online Windows users face on a minute by minute basis.
But to be fair to Windows, it honestly often is a turnkey solution to whatever office computing needs there be, and without it, information security, as an area of study, as a profession, and as an industry, would not even exist as we know it today. The fact of the matter is that Windows' security issues (and other issues Windows exhibits unrelated to security) creates jobs, and this can not be ignored. Arguably, the jobs Windows creates are more important than the security issues it introduces. Also, to be fair, without C, C++, .NET, Python, Perl, and JavaScript, Windows would probably be 90% more secure, so it is not all Microsoft's fault and, in a sense, some of the problem is beyond their control.