The existence of the vulnerability itself is now obvious-- no one is arguing against it. (And thus, I don't think anyone's arguing that a fully-patched OS X system is fully impenetrable). But the fact that the winner gets to keep the hardware certainly has a lot to do with which target they choose to attack.
Did Safari fall first because it is the least secure, or because it is the hardware everyone wants to win? It really is difficult, if not impossible to tell.
Personally, I'm quite sure that the Windows machines are at this point far more secure, simply because Microsoft takes so much battering by being in the dominant position. But I wouldn't use this as evidence for it.
EDIT: Question about your quote-- later in that article, Miller suggests that there is no "randomization" in OS X, while this year's article says his exploit bypassed ASLR in OS X-- is this a new feature in OS X that wasn't present in 2009?