It's quite common for linux afficionados to relate stories of how they'd built Windows machines that were unstable. They forget the obvious cause: they they don't have the skill it takes to create a stable, secure Windows machine.
On the flip side, a Windows afficionado could hardly be expected to ensure that a fresh installation of Linux is secure and stable.
There's a double standard in effect:
Windows is expected either be stable and secure out-of-the-box after a default install or it's crap.
Linux is expected to be installed by a knowledgeable, experienced professional or it's your own damned fault it's not stable and secure.
The standard could easily be applied in reverse, but it simply is not. That would be fair and who wants to be fair to Microsoft? It's not "kewl" among the "1337 h4xx0rz".
I own stable and secure examples of both, but at least the Microsoft examples less frequently drive me to physical violence.