What are some things that Linux can't do, but Windows can?

This commenter used "NI Maschine" as though everbody'd know what "NI" stood for...

iirc, it stands for Native Instruments, and iirc, the "Maschine" is either hardware or hardware+software.

The ONLY Linux distro which may do what theyre wanting, is UbuntuStudio.

I happen to agree that it is a damn "whack-a-mole" "game" for us in Linux, and I"ve been experiencing that since 1996 ( when only Slackware mostly-worked ),

but .. if ever the spyware in MS's products gets made illegal, then .. Linux'd be the only lifeboat left?

( don't tell me that Apple isn't every-bit as much into privacy-molestation as the other Big Tech corpos are: they aren't a real alternative )

_ /\ _

What wasn't working that you couldn't use Linux? If it was wine then I totally understand and it sounds like you're a media editor or something in which case you're stuck with Mac or Windows. I personally just always dual boot and run Linux 99% of the time and only open windows when I really need it, which is almost never.

These aren't Linux issues that Windows does better. It's just companies that decided their software shouldn't run on Linux.

Well, then Windows is better at getting third party producers to support it. Same problem, same result, different wording.
- Sure, but there's a big difference between the support existing within the Linux architecture and it not. Almost every issue in the parent comment could be fixed without any input from Linux developers at all.
  But fundamentally Linux and open source are ethically orthogonal to for-profit software. The fact that big software companies don't prioritize Linux is in some ways a feature, and is why we actually have the proliferation of high-quality open source alternatives. I doubt Blender or GIMP would exist if the proprietary leaders in their fields offered Linux versions from the beginning, especially if they were free.
  There are people in the thread talking about how all Linux needs is for big software companies to ditch Microsoft and get with Linux, but that would never happen as they're imagining. Big for-profit tech would always put itself into a walled garden. What needs to happen is that the few big unassailable tech stacks that keep people chained to the proprietary products need real open replacements -- namely GIMP needs to get its redesign finished and figure out the last few features it needs for professional parity, and we need a real AutoCAD competitor. I think we already have good DAWs and professional audio through JACK/Pipewire, and there's probably a couple others that I'm forgetting... But if Photoshop and AutoCAD alone were not viewed as unreplaceable, that would be a massive boost in the number of people who could use Linux for their jobs.
That's how business works. What company is going to dedicate a bunch of resources to make 1% of their market happy?
- I 100% agree, but it's a catch 22. No one develops for Linux because it doesn't have a market share, and it doesn't have a market share because no one develops for it.
- 3.8%
  Also redhat.
  
  I'll give you the 3.8 as total userbase, but I'm willing to bet that it's only about 1% that are exclusive to Linux and don't use a Windows machine at all.
Right. I mean, macs used to be the bees' knees.