Actually, you inferred that. I don't know if your inference is right
or wrong and the chart doesn't say one way or the other.
It only says what it says. When you draw conclusions from what it
says, you're interpreting the data. You may be right, or you may be
wrong, but you're no longer simply reading the data.
Well let's see. This was a study done for almost 3 months and "The
statistical material covers all in all more than half a million user
exposures out of which as many as 31.3 % were infected with the
virus/malware due to missing security updates."
That means 1/3 of computer users were getting infected and 2/3 were not.
It states 2877 out of 13,210 were infected. The last figure I have of
Windows 98 users on the web was 0.1% back in 2008(1). I am sure it is
less now, but using this last figure means there was probably 13 Windows
98 users tops in this study. But probably less than that and more than
0. And if any one of them 13 or less had gotten infected, there is no
way that figure would be at 0%. So one or even more and still at 0% is
pretty damn good if you ask me.
And they even broke it down:
41% of XP users were getting infected
38% of Vista users were getting infected
16% of Windows 7 users were getting infected
2% of Windows 2000 users were getting infected
0% of Windows 98 users were getting infected
(1) OS Statistics