Rudeness does nothing to support your point.
Physical access leads to an exploited machine full stop. Operating system does not enter into it. Remotely, a patched 9x system might could be crashed, but you'll not be seeing it get rooted by the kiddies and worms running around. Anything more and again OS does not enter into it: the attacker was determined and, as any second year tech will tell you, a determined attacker is going to get in.
I do not advocate that businesses keep 98, much less choose 9x over 2000, however if they have existing 9x machines in low-risk areas performing tasks that won't be done any better on a newer OS, why should they bother with a newer OS? Don't fix what isn't broke, right?
As for end-users they probably have even more reason to stick with 9x if it is doing the job for them. Why should they bother with the hassle of switching? Again, they'll face the same dangers either way, assuming those dangers even apply, and 9x does the job. For what I do with my machines, 2000 does the job better and so that is what I use. 98SE however did the job quite respectably and crashed or required reboot almost as rarely as 2000 Server. The last 98 box in the house--tasked with playing movies to the TV in the living room on the weekends--suffers on rare occasions not because of the OS it's running, but because of the ancient video card. It doesn't crash, as most people seem to believe 98 is wont to do at the drop of a hat. It just sits there, providing internet access to that end of the house and providing entertainment (who needs media center?
). It couldn't possibly do its job any better if it were running XP or 2000. In fact, given the hardware in it, it'd most likely perform worse.
Insulting and talking down to those who still use 9x--hell my granddad still uses ME and has no problems--only shows your own arrogance and ignorance.
Use the right OS for the right job. 9x is just fine, even superior, in some situations. There are those situations where it doesn't matter, and in still others, yes it is inferior. That's a choice for the user to make. I'm sorry you can't seem to accept that.
As to dual-booting, why have two operating systems when one does most or everything a user needs equally well or with negligible difference?