No-one said it's all roses and bliss. My argument is that mainstream software was, on average, more performant and more polished (and not considerably more bug

No-one said it's all roses and bliss. My argument is that mainstream software was, on average, more performant and more polished (and not considerably more buggy or unstable; possibly less buggy due to being less complex) than it is today. I was relatively happy using mostly the same software that everyone else was using too. Today, not so much; I find most mainstream software unbearable, repulsive, slow, full of annoying quirks & rough edges. I'm not happy using it so I don't. For me it's a completely different era. I don't know if anyone is measuring this objectively, and I assume not. So we might not ever be able to say whether the claim is objectively true or just my subjective experience. But it's not fair to dismiss the whole argument by mischaracterizing it.