Not terribly experienced, but I'm entailed to my opinion on what I like and don't like and if I don't like it because I don't like it, there isn't anything you can do to say to change that.
I wouldn't attempt in a million years to change your opinion about something. I'm just not going to put much value in a blank claim of "what a terrible operating system", from somebody with very little experience actually using it.
"I've always wanted to pick from over 500 different Linux systems!" -Said no one in the real consumer world ever.
Um, why do you think that there are 500 different Linux distros out there? It's obviously people who saw a value, need or reason to spin their own distro. Some of these people are consumers as well.
You are correct about Apple having to support very little hardware which means it's drivers should be (but not always) very stable but that still doesn't explain how they made it easy and Linux is still difficult.
Sure it does, they have built a very locked down non customizable graphical wrapper around the core and forced their end users to use it. These users willingly accept that.
Linux on the other hand is trying to support all different kinds of hardware, on both new and old machines, using many devices that are simply "made for Windows by their manufacturers". Instead of having a pre-set way of doing something, Linux is open. You are provided an often overwhelming amount of choice. With that choice comes a learning curve and a higher amount of knowledge to often get something set up and working. It's certainly not simple for most people. On a positive note, you won't often find an end user who figured out how to start up a web server with a few clicks that is full of holes and is a huge security vulnerability....< but this happens all of the time with other Operating Systems. The Linux guy has to learn a bit along the way and at the end of the day, I argue that it's a better approach.
In other words, the same thing that makes Linux so great is the same thing that will always hold it back from making grounds on the desktop end. Your typical user should never have to open up a terminal to perform everyday tasks such as installing software that isn't in the default 'market/store'.
Yes, that will always hold Linux back, but it's absolutely core to it's fundamental concept. The community isn't ever going to agree on 1 way to do all things. It will never happen. If that means no Linux mass appeal at the desktop, I'm fine with that. I value my choices too much on the server end to ever have my hand forced.
Personally, most software in Ubuntu, Mint or Fedora can be installed with graphical tools like Synaptic and such. But the fact remains, that for many an admin, doing things at the command line is simply preferred. My Linux servers NEVER run a desktop, EVER. it's simply not needed. Documentation is perfect and it's all cut and paste and can all be scripted. Never in a million years do I want to see Linux instructions which say, "click here, click here, check this, click on Ok, Ok, Ok, finish". When people at work follow my documentation at work, they simply paste the command, hit enter and get it right 100% of the time. This is exactly why you see so much documentation on forums and wikis that use these cryptic commands. they are precise.
And in the event of a system crash or failure, it's a matter of restoring a couple of config files and startup scripts and the box is right back in action. That beats the pants off having to deal with the registry, etc. < But that's my just my opinion. I've been doing Windows and Linux server admin stuff since 1997.
De is one of the linux weaknesses, it all is low quality students homeworks... Thats one of windows 7, 8 strengths - high quality, rock-stable de with high quality, perfect performance effects and great funcionality, combined with good graphics drivers from all manufacturers, even with low performance, 10 years old intel graphics everything is smooth as baby's skin 
