UNIX and Windows (Since NT 4.0) are both great OS's. They both continue to improve, and move into new areas, and really, an OS is an OS, and they all do the same thing, but just have different names for each function and sub-components (e.g. Windows has Services and UNIX has Deamons; they booth boot from a kernal; they both have certain scripts/programs that run at prescribed sequences once the kernal is loaded).
Both UNIX and Windows are converging to the same place. UNIX has more GUI Administration tools being added all the time, and Windows has added scripting and CLI over the years. I don't mind change. Anyone who doesn't like change shouldn't be in the Computer Science industry. Windows 8.1/Windows 2012 GUI was a terrible UI design. MS made a horrible mistake in trying to make Windows into IOS and seemed to forget that a laptop is not an ipod. But, aside from that mistake, I think it is unreasonable to make such radical changes in UI without radical benefit. MS has the tendency to do this. Look at Office. Companies hold off upgrading because the cost benefit ratio's aren't there for them. They tend to stay on say Office 2003, and ignore two full releases of Office before upgrading, because they know it disrupts established business processes (software too), and is a hit on productivity while everyone learns the new interface.
There can be progress, without radical changes. I think IOS from V6 to V8 is a good example of this. It has great discoverability, and new features are usually easy to learn and immediately add to your productivity.
Also, for many years UNIX was much more reliable than Windows. I've had UNIX servers which did all the heavy, critical work for a company I worked for with up-times of 365 days or more in the days when Windows 2000 and 2003 couldn't come close (but I still think W2Kx were good OS's). Windows has gotten much more reliable, I give MS lots of credit for continual improvement.
But, when things are moved around and a new version slapped on it, its hard to see the value in it. I find myself saying WTF a lot. If you don't know how to do something in UNIX, all you have to do is learn how to use the man pages (man stands for manual, and it is the UNIX help system). You don't have to read the whole man page. You scan for what you need. They are a big help. I know the commands are cryptic, with all the switches, but you memorize them if you are using them everyday, and only occasionally need to look at a man page.
Another thing I hate about Windows is they hide everything. Task Manager doesn't seem to show all the processes. In UNIX, the ps command shows all and you can kill off the bad process and the OS keeps rolling on. In Windows, if the system is slow, its sometimes hard to identify what is wrong. You know something is hogging RAM or CPU cycles, but TaskManager shows the system at 99% idle. Major BS.
I'm not here to be in a back and forth about which system is better. I've used both, and have liked both for many years. I just wish MS would stop moving completely rearranging the UI so much. The worst thing is when I jump on the computer and say "where the hell is this or that" and I have to go on a eater egg hunt just to something routine.
Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was a revolution, and for good reason. Windows NT4.0 was a large improvement over W95, and basically all the Windows that followed (except Millenium and Vista) were incremental improvements upon the predecessor. Windows 7 was so/so. Reliability improved, but to me, somethings were not "better", just different. Windows 8 was a UI disaster and so was 2012, which is why they made corrections to go back to some of the features of the prior OS. It's all interesting to watch and participate in. The market and the people will vote with there money. I hear Windows 10 (they are skipping 9) is going to be great.