It’s subjective. I’m not trying to be dismissive or something, but it’s that simple. Windows is more successful than Linux for what Microsoft wants it to be more successful at.

I’m not saying Windows is better. I like Linux more. I use it. I’m just saying that for the personal computing market share that Microsoft wants, Windows is more successful than Linux.

To be honest, if Microsoft wanted to affect other stuff with Linux, they’d probably just contribute the changes they want into it. It wouldn’t surprise me if they already did. They contributed many features to git for things they wanted to use in git.

A lot of reasons. First of all, it’s not really their goal to make a good OS for users. They know that 95% will use windows no matter what, especially businesses, because they still more or less have a monopoly, especially in the desktop market.

In other words, any ressources spent on improving the desktop OS experience past the bare minimum is excess because they don’t really get anything concrete in return.

Yes, windows is less efficient than other os, but until recently, this wasn’t a problem for microsoft since you can just throw more/better hardware at the issue, which is a win win. They have to spend less ressources at optimizing code for better performance and, I imagine, they get a better cut since their hardware partners sell more devices because hardware gets obsoete every couple of years.

And in the server environment, they want it to be increasingly expensive because windows server is mostly used in cases where there is no alternative, and they want it all in their cloud.

Also, a lot of what is annoying about windows is per design. Ads, sponsorship ads, forced accounts, etc.

Power of the people.

When a collective works on something together for their shared benefit, the outcome will be better than when a company exploits people for profit.

Their main goal is to extract maximum revenue, not to provide good products. Also, they’ve grown fat on the monopoly profits they enjoyed for decades. It’s very hard to pivot back to competitiveness from that and as of now, they’re not really compelled to do that.

They’re a B2B company first and foremost. What they’re selling is the Microsoft ecosystem to companies, like their Office suite. Companies don’t care if each individual products sucks - just that they integrate well with other products. In particular, companies want good integration with Active Directory (Microsoft’s permission management system). Companies love controlling who gets access to what.

Consumer operating systems is more of a side hustle for them.

Linux is setting out to make an operating system. Microsoft are setting out to make a data capturing advertising billboard that sometimes runs programs.

Because with Linux, the software design decisions are made by engineers, not executives.

Microsoft’s mission isn’t to improve the public good. Microsoft’s mission is wealth extraction for its shareholders.

Windows is worse for you as an individual consumer. But I would argue Windows is a better product for advertisers and other interests that go beyond you. Those interests are at odds with your interests. You need to look at the bigger picture.

Easy, their objective is to make money, not develop software. Linux is made and maintained by users, for users…

1. Linux isn’t driven by a profit-first motive, so user-centric decisions come first
2. There is no number 2

Linux has devs in charge instead of managers.

Microsoft has pretty much lost most of their experienced employees, they’re sitting on a mountain of spaghetti code with tech debt that goes back to windows 3.1 to maintain compatibility, they’ve fired their QA team, and their absolutely out-of-touch leadership is trying to force the surviving employees to use AI anywhere they can for developing the OS to pump up the numbers of AI users to prop up their insanely huge AI gamble so shareholders don’t lose faith.

They’re acting confident because they haven’t had to respond to a credible threat to their monopoly for 30 years, and that arrogance combined with everything mentioned above will most likely be their ultimate demise. The corporate system they have created and perpetuated is no longer capable of righting the ship, both technologically and organizationally.

They made a statement years ago now about how they were going to respond to the success of the steamdeck by creating a handheld mode for windows, but they never did, and Valve ate their lunch and allowed Linux to gain a foothold among gamers. They probably couldn’t manage building that handheld mode (it’s been so many years now, but I read a post from a Microsoft employee detailing how it could take something crazy like a week of work just to add a new menu entry to a drop-down without it introducing major breakages elsewhere).

They haven’t been able to develop a killer app or feature for Windows in over a decade, and I don’t think there’s anything else under their sleeve. I believe we are actively witnessing the downfall of an ossified giant, just as the once great Commodore fell due to incompetence and extreme corporate greed.

They already use Linux for their server division (azure). Eventually, if Linux is able dominate on the desktop in the next decade, they may shift to selling their own Linux distro with a 100% windows compatible container/VM instead, an inversion of their current model of selling Windows with their optional WSL (windows subsystem for Linux).

Different design priorities - MS devs aim to make the OS a marketing tool for other products, which are continuously obsoleted to encourage repeated re-buying. Linux devs aim to make stuff work.

Apart from what everyone here is saying, which is probably mostly true, I want to add that the Windows division in microsoft isn’t the biggest either in terms of revenue or funding; it’s not even second. The office team is much bigger for instance - so Windows has not been Microslops priority for a good 15 years i’d say. My 2 cents

Windows isn’t trying to do what Linux does.

On the server end, Linux beat every competitor out there, including Windows Server, because it was free and development occurred along the lines of educated users making improvements. So, at first Linux was worse to use, but it was cheaper. Then, Linux was about as easy/stable as paid for versions, but it was cheaper. When it became easier to use to educated users and more stable and cheaper, all paid server OS’s died.

That said, I bring up educated users because Linux is only a kernel and Windows by itself does more than Linux does by itself. On the consumer end, no one has been able to threaten Windows without a DRM’d app store. Consumers won’t do bug fixes at the scale that enterprise users will. Consumers generally need more developed on the UI side to make the OS functional while you can run Linux in terminal mode. Most of Windows’ development went into this, making Windows easy/desirable for consumers. In contrast, most Linux development time went to making Linux more easy/desirable for enterprise users/servers.

This is really the first year that Linux for consumers is viable and a lot of that work packaging Linux for consumers came from Valve putting the various pieces of open source software together and sanding down the rough edges. In contrast, Microsoft has been doing that for a generation.