What Windows has going for it is that it supports a lot of different desktop/laptop hardware very well.

macOS doesn't support a lot of hardware. Linux supports a lot of hardware but much of it not very well.

If I list my desired specs for a laptop or desktop and then go ahead and buy the one that best meets my criteria, chances are pretty high that Windows will run best on it.

I have been a Mac user for many years. I'm using a Mac mini right now. But if I had to replace it today I wouldn't know what to replace it with.

I don't think that's the case. It's not that Windows itself supports more hardware, but the fact that drivers for said hardware are built only for Windows. It could even be seen as a vicious cicle: 1) HW manufacturers create drivers for Windows because It's more popular; 2) Users use Windows because "It Just Works (TM)" and so userbase grows; 3) goto 1

> Linux supports a lot of hardware but much of it not very well.

Hence I think Linux supports more HW but driver support isn't as good.

I get what you're saying though.

Damn it, Foxconn managed to ship a desktop motherboard that would produce junk ACPI data unless the OS identified itself as Windows on boot.

For Linux to compete with Windows realistically for average computer users it needs to have a distro that is like macOS in that it's idiot proof. I should be able to sit someone down in front of a computer running it with no instructions and the OS should do the teaching without telling them to open a terminal and look at man pages.

If you speak about this in /r/linux, the people there will tell you that "if people are not willing to learn how to use the terminal to install apps, then they're just lazy/too stupid". This is the kind of mentality we're dealing with and that's why there's 288 ditros without any chance of mass adoption.