And Windows NT was the result of the failed joint venture with IBM while developing OS/2. While IBM wanted stability and preferred to let the user wait at power up until the IS was sure everything checked out, MS wanted fast user satisfaction and if things fail, just let the user reboot.
I prefer to get a cup of coffee when the computer boot up at the start of the day, but no, 'the market' preferred a quick start and regular coffee breaks during the day. I'd almost suspect MS from having stocks in the coffee industry.
Which OS is better? The one that meets the user's needs. I'm glad there is choice, my choice isn't everybody's choice. The Windows desktop at work comes with a helpdesk, which works fine for me. (when I need them, but I'll deny any knowledge of Windows ;) )
When I bought my first (and only) smartphone, I figured that since it was using this partially open source linux-based OS, I'd be able to customise it, get rid of crapware, and remove google's hooks from it. But I was wrong. I wasn't able to do any of those things. Because of that, I don't have a particularly favourable view towards Android.
That's the error. The word "are" isn't even a part of their comment. They don't want people finding the one, singular, that is above the rest. They proposed flipping the competition. Finding the worst. That leaves no top-most judgement for the rest, no hypocrisy with that.
I interpreted their comment as "There are at least two tiers of things: things that are Microsoft Windows and those that aren't, and the tier that includes Microsoft Windows is not the most superior tier". I don't think that's hypocritical.
Windows users? I mean the reason why Linux users proclaim the superiority of Linux is because Windows users always say that they want to leave Windows but XYZ doesn't work or Linux, making Linux look like it's feature poor which isn't the case.
But they continue to complain instead of learn to adapt. I have a friend who needs help every week and I told him I am charging for windows help from here on because this is stupid.
Linux, as an OS, is much more feature rich. What it lacks is applications. There are many applications out there that are only available for Windows or OSX and there is no Linux app to do the same thing (or the Linux app is very far behind in quality). The inverse (a Linux only app) is rarely true, except for applications that are niche or heavily rely on an OS feature that does not have a close equivalent on Windows.
Plus, just about every piece of (consumer) hardware that can be connected to a computer has a Windows driver.
And another thing you can add to that fact is that Windows users gets to enjoy the best of the Linux apps. VLC, Gimp, Audacity, OBS, etc. That's a big reason why Windows is even usable for an average user.
Around half my applications on Windows were FOSS even before I moved to Linux and I used them for a long time. The proprietary apps I did use, I don't really miss. I also doubt anybody actually likes having to install drivers on Windows or browse the web for apps. It's just extra bullshit.