I do agree with you that these problems are not the fault of Linux, but I never meant to imply that they were. The average PC user has absolutely zero care for where the fault is, the only thing that matters to them as an end user is their experience while using the operating system. Users who actually care about the quality and ethics of the software they use are likely to already be using Linux anyway, but that is very much not the norm. The layperson is perfectly happy to never care or understand a single thing about their operating system. I will be answering your response to each of my points, as well as rebuttals for this:

The Linux way to do most of them is using the package manager, and that's much simpler than searching the internet for the correct download.

in the following:

Distro specific. It should be just like installing anything else, and it is for some distros, certainty for the ones I've been using.

They are pre-installed in Windows. In fact, most people won't even understand why their media isn't playing, and won't even know that they need to install something, or how to install it. Some distros have them pre-installed, but there are plenty that do not. The point here is that it is inherently less intuitive and more difficult in Linux than in Windows.

This doesn't require installing anything in Windows. This is purely easier in Windows for many distributions, and equal at best for those who have them installed by default. Thus using the package manager is not easier or more intuitive in this sense, especially since the packages have strange names (so you'd have to look up how to do it as a new user).

Distro specific, I've had NVIDIA drivers auto-updating for the past 15 years or so, long before Windows had that same capabilities. And it updates with my regular system update, no need to use any special GUI for it.

Nvidia's driver software comes pre-installed in a lot of pre-built systems nowadays. It has automatic update checking so it will prompt you on boot to ask if you want to update. Even if it didn't come pre-installed (which is also the case with most Linux distros), Windows users don't have to look up a tutorial on how to download and install the drivers. In Linux, the package names and installation methods vary so greatly between distros, that I still have to look it up every time I set up a new distro, even with a decade of Linux experience. In either case, the user will need to use the Internet to search for a page (either the Nvidia driver site, or a tutorial for how to do it on their distro). And no, I'm not talking about Nouveau here, it still has lots of issues and delivers much worse performance than the proprietary driver. Sure, using an AMD card is easier, but the current market share suggests most people will be coming over with Nvidia hardware.

When all the first results are the Nvidia website with official driver downloads, and don't require the user to use the terminal (and make sure the tutorial works for their distro), Windows is easier there. You just download an executable and run it. No need to add non-free repositories to your package manager, no need to use the terminal, just a search, 4 clicks, and you're done. Yes, it's a very "Windows way to do things", but it's also objectively easier than it is in a variety of Linux distros. A select few distros have a GUI way to manage this, which I'd rate as slightly easier than the manual Windows way, but still more difficult than the "this is already installed on my system" way that's the case for many pre-builts and laptops.

Not Linux problem. Also, while I can see the argument that's easier to use what's already installed, that tells you nothing of how easy one thing is in comparison to the other. If computers came with the most convolutedly complex and unusable crap of an OS, full of bloatware and spyware pre-installed people would still use it. Not to mention that the Linux installation process was much easier than Windows for the longest time (until windows finally implemented automatic driver installation)

You seem to have answered this for me. People will use what is pre-installed on their system because it is easier for them to do so. Again, not the fault of Linux, but it adds a layer of difficulty to those who want to switch. The layperson doesn't know what an ISO image is, or how to make a liveUSB out of one.

This has nothing to do with using a package manager or the "Linux way to do things".

Not Linux problem. Although this is something to bear in mind while choosing your OS, it's the companies that make games that are at fault here, there's nothing Linux can do to remedy this situation, so it's unfair to judge it for it. That's like saying Windows is harder to use because running docker containers in it is impossible without some virtualisation, while this is something to consider when deciding what OS will you use to self-host, it's not per-se a reason why Windows is more difficult to use.

Most end users will not care whose fault it is. The fact of the matter is that it will dissuade a large portion of gamers away from Linux, as Riot games don't run at all. It's much more difficult to convince someone that they should switch to another operating system when the games they play or programs they use (like Adobe software) won't work. Sure, in many cases there are alternatives, but that's a massive layer of difficulty, especially if you're expecting people to learn new, alternative software with equally steep or steeper learning curves than the Adobe suite, or give up games they've been playing for years.

Again, nothing to do with a package manager or the "Linux way to do things".

Same as above.

Again, the end user doesn't care whose fault it is. If they can't access the features their laptop or PC came with (like the ability to use their discrete GPU), then that's going to be a hard sell. And even if they can by installing something like rog-control-center, that is still another layer of difficulty.

If there is a solution available for a specific computer, it is inherently more difficult on Linux. The computer will come pre-installed with the correct software (no download necessary), and even if you were to reinstall, all you have to do is download a single executable and run it. On Linux, however, you have to research and figure out what kind of software would even do this (asusctl or rog-control-center, for instance), then you have to check the model number of your laptop or motherboard for compatibility because only a select few will be compatible, then you have to add a PPA/repo to your package manager (if the solution even has that available; some will require you to build from source and/or update manually every update), and only then can you install the package. Far more steps, far less intuitive, and far more difficult for an average user.

I gave you examples of things that are more difficult in Linux than Windows. None of these things have to do with a difference in perspective on how to install software, or an investment in the "Windows way" to do things. I've been using Linux for around a decade, and I've had recent experience with each of these things in Windows while helping other people. They are simply easier in Windows. I want to again make it clear that I never said any of these were the fault of Linux, but you can't merely overlook them simply because Linux isn't at fault. New users would still want/have to do these things, and doing them can be difficult or impossible depending on compatibility. There are plenty of arguments for Linux, but the argument that it is simpler or easier in any overarching sense is not one of them. There are very specific instances where things are easier in Linux, or the experience of a user is simpler in Linux, but those few cases do not encompass the entirety of Linux. You have said yourself that you have not used Windows recently, and that seems very apparent to me. I dislike Windows, but Linux has not gotten anywhere near a point where one of my recommendations for switching to Linux are that it is easier or simpler.

I agree that the package manager is a much better solution than the Windows way of doing things, but it has nothing to do with most of the points I made.