The sad reality is that a computer is a complicated thing. Sometimes, your car breaks and you need a mechanic to fix it. Same goes for computers. And of course, businesses have strong expectations regarding mechanics and liabilities.
One main difference between linux and windows is that for the most part, MS isn't concerned about how 3rd party apps should install, upgrade, or remove themselves from the system, outside of security considerations. This burden however falls back mostly on distros in the linux world. Ye. I'd be curious to know how much of upgrade failures are due to userland apps as opposed to OS configuration issues for mainstream distros these days.
Also, Windows started with imperfections as well, but customers didn't have much choice at the time, and had to do with all the issues of DOS+Windows 3.11 and then migration paths to Win95/NT and then XP. The road wasn't exactly straight and flat at the time. MS always played the card of compatibility, which was a major factor for companies (who wants the extra headaches of migrating her apps on top of migrating the OS?).
Anyway, this topic has been discussed to death already, I'm pretty sure it all boils down to MS having been there before competition, and having managed to keep that step ahead (UEFI anyone?). Businesses can adapt if necessary, they just won't pick the hardest road if it doesn't make enough sense for them money wise, and MS made sure it never did.
One main difference between linux and windows is that for the most part, MS isn't concerned about how 3rd party apps should install, upgrade, or remove themselves from the system, outside of security considerations. This burden however falls back mostly on distros in the linux world. Ye. I'd be curious to know how much of upgrade failures are due to userland apps as opposed to OS configuration issues for mainstream distros these days.
Also, Windows started with imperfections as well, but customers didn't have much choice at the time, and had to do with all the issues of DOS+Windows 3.11 and then migration paths to Win95/NT and then XP. The road wasn't exactly straight and flat at the time. MS always played the card of compatibility, which was a major factor for companies (who wants the extra headaches of migrating her apps on top of migrating the OS?).
Anyway, this topic has been discussed to death already, I'm pretty sure it all boils down to MS having been there before competition, and having managed to keep that step ahead (UEFI anyone?). Businesses can adapt if necessary, they just won't pick the hardest road if it doesn't make enough sense for them money wise, and MS made sure it never did.