Here is a key point in the article:

Toulouse pointed to one particularly problematic patch that took the company 200 days to fix: a vulnerability in a component of Windows (and many other networking applications) known as ASN.1, at the time considered the largest vulnerability in the history of the Windows operating system. In the course of testing the patch for that flaw --  reported by security researchers at Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based eEye Digital Security -- Microsoft was forced to reset the process at least twice as internal developers found additional problems that were being masked by previously unknown glitches in the fix.

I would prefer that Microsoft (or any other software vendor) take the time to fully test the patch before releasing it. This can be a lengthy process but if the vulnerability has not be disclosed to the public then the software vendor responsible to take the time to make sure that the patch is not going to cause any problems with the software and, more importantly, not expose any additional vulnerabilities.

I would guess (or at least give the benefit of the doubt) that a good amount of the delay in patches for vulnerabilities that have not received "full disclosure" has to do with testing and the other patches pose a bit more risk to the users. Then again, I am fairly optimistic