For small users with less experience/resources, Windows can be attractive to manage and feel friendly. Just like there's people that like using the Network Mana

For small users with less experience/resources, Windows can be attractive to manage and feel friendly. Just like there's people that like using the Network Manager GUI on Linux distros. Windows offers a lot of stuff with a few clicks, without having to read or understand too much. Like SQL Server, setting up even advanced fail over cluster systems is pretty simple. A day's work, even if you've never done it before. That's attractive. Plus there's all the corp management stuff like AD, which Linux doesn't have for real. At least not as slick and smoothly integrated. But yeah, even as a long time MS user, I'm less impressed with it as time goes on. No containers. IIS's reverse proxy support is a sick joke. No equivalent of DRBD; no real tweaking in general. And IIS didn't have SPDY. It'll be showing to see how they handle HTTP/2. Will they stick to the lame line of "http.sys is the HTTP stack, so only Windows 10 can do HTTP/2"? (IIRC, that's how WebSockets story went.) Or will they just do the right thing and make it work? Anyways, your question is one MS is very aware of, and in the center of a lot of Azure. For a quad core VM, Windows costs an extra $1000+ a year on the cloud platforms. MS knows this is often not a good ROI.