> Linux (at least Archlinux) doesn't require much once you install it, are happy with the set-up and regularly update it.

Using Archlinux presumes you already know your system intimately and have taken the time to hand-craft it. That would make solving problems down the road much easier.

On the other hand, if you're like me and you want to just drop standard-issue Linux (i.e. Ubuntu) on a computer and then just use it, you quickly encounter gaps in the defaults/automatic setup and have to dig in and try to figure out where things went wrong. Your graphics driver gets confused when you plug in a second monitor. Your WiFi card isn't detected. There's no sound. Little things that kill your workflow in a death by a thousand cuts.

Windows has just as much intrinsic fragility, if not more, but through sheer economy of scale nearly everyone's real-world problems have been addressed by layer upon layer of defaults and automatic checks. That's how Windows manages to "just work" most of the time.

The thing about Archlinux is that apparently it requires constant updates or you won't be able to keep up with the current distro at some point. That's not really a recipe for stability, especially if you care about actively using the system and not just testing/playing with the bleeding edge stuff.

I update every few months and that works out fine. More than a year of no updates could make it difficult. All you have to do is pacman -Syu, and it doesn't really interrupt your flow since you can just continue working while it updates. The few times something doesn't work, you look at archlinux.org and the issue plus solution (usually remove some package or update in a specific order) will be described right there on the front page. Seems like a smoother experience than what I remember from Windows with autocountdown timers and what not...

But it's actually also amazing how when you reinstall Linux, and copy over your home directory, everything looks like it was before and you can just continue on as if nothing happened.