I did not say I like all Microsoft's practice. But as a developer I love being able to get real good at one OS rather than mediocre at three. I, as user love to not have to choose which machine will run the applications I don't know I'll need in the future. Users, Developers, and Peripheral venders want one OS. CPU and OS companies are not happy about that and wanted it to be them.
The hardware venders would much prefer ONE OS. For every OS they need another team of developers. They make more money and life is simpler with ONE OS.
My Windows machines rarely crash and when they do it's usually my fault because I wrote bad code. One reason why "Windows" appears unstable is because it runs with a HUGE array of hardware. It's amazing it works at all. 99% of all crashes are due to BAD device drivers. Pick good hardware (not hardware that's too cutting edge because device drivers are not debugged yet) and Windows 95, 98 and NT are pretty damn solid. Device drivers that come with windows are often the most stable (maybe not the fastest or have every feature).
Also cheap hardware dos not have the backup systems Unix workstations had. It's not Microsofts fault the public demands cheap hardware. Most systems don't even have parity memory. Blame the public, blame east asia for super cheap hardware, don't blame Microsoft. Hardware is getting better these days.
No system is bug free and since Windows is so popular if any problem do exist you will surely hear about it.
If as much cheap hardware and applications were all on unix today you'd have similar issues. It was easy to control Unix or Mac machines because all the hardware, OS and in some cases even the applications came from the same vender. Yes Unix runs on PCs today and 3rd parties make Mac's but they were to late. Windows/Intel already took over.
