Comment by somenameforme

I'm not sure. They put a ton of effort into things like DirectX, were outright anticompetitive against OpenGL, and there was an atypically high degree of competence and vision throughout. It probably wasn't about the games but about tying people to Windows. People didn't make games for Linux because there were no gamers on Linux. There were no gamers on Linux because people didn't make games for Linux.

On top of this, gaming used to be (and probably still is) the main reason to cycle through PCs. If you're just going to browse the web, use relatively low resource software, etc then a PC or even laptop from a decade+ ago is 100% fine. The reason consumers upgrade is going to be heavily weighted by games. And each of those upgrades often comes with new OEM software that was licensed and other economic benefits to Microsoft.

---

As for modern Microsoft, I agree with you from an outsider's perspective, but I'd bet internally it's a different game. Microsoft seems to be having major issues with labor competency, on both the implementation and management side, and it's making their entire ecosystem collapse. Anything that has major outward visibility (like desktop OS) is going to make the circus most immediately visible. I have little doubt they have the same stuff going on internally with their other offerings.