Yes, but windows was not designed for the application. The application was designed for windows. This is a huge difference and blame for it not running on Linux should be placed at the producers of the application, not the os. If you want to criticize an os, then do so by looking at what does and does not work in the hardware interface, not by listing applications that have been designed for particular systems.

For all I know, windows could be the worst thing ever to develop applications for, but since it’s the most popular OS, most companies targets it for development. It doesn’t make it a better os.

Or you know, the fact that the application can’t run on Linux.

Yes, but this is a design choice made by those who make the app, not a design choice made by those that make the operating system.

If I make a screwdriver that isn’t compatible with any screws on the market, that is my poor design choice, not that of screw manufacturers.

That’s not due to the operating system but rather the choice of those producing the program. The operating system simply provides an interface to the underlying hardware.

Well, as operating systems go, they both accomplish pretty much the same thing: an interface for programs so that they get access to hardware resources. One thing that Linux does is that it supports many more architectures than what windows does.

In windows, the UI is a part of the operating system so customization is a lot harder than what it is in Linux.

These are the only things that I can think of that are directly tied to the operating systems, but I’m not the most knowledgeable on these things. I honestly wonder what makes windows better as an operating system, because I can’t find anything.

What can windows as an operating system do that no other can do? Do they have magical scheduling?

You can just keep the smoke in your mouth, no need to inhale it if it’s just for show.