Can you elaborate this assertion? As far as stability goes, macs are top notch. I'd say in the business context Windows machines are prevalent because of successful MS strategies (in terms of marketing, not ethics) in 1995-2005 era, and it kind of stuck around.
Windows has provisions for performing all sorts of tasks across a fleet of desktops. I can automate deployment of a Windows desktop to the point where all you have to do is boot it up and join it to the domain (which makes it easier to hire someone to do it as well).
What's more is that these settings will work across updates. I've gotten really sick of the screwy changes Apple makes to macOS with little warning. Windows goes to great lengths to ensure backwards compatibility between major version upgrades. (For example, did you know VB6 apps still run just fine?) Also, I can get fine grained control of updates to Windows.
But maybe most importantly, I can virtualize Windows and create a virtual desktop environment. Now I can hand out toasters to users and they can just log in to their box from anywhere.
Windows is simply much better at making desktop units fungible.
That said, everywhere I've worked the past 8 years, across 3 jobs, was virtually Mac-only. But yes, the valley is an outlier.
From the medium to enterprise range, maintenance and stability issues are often one in the same. Breaking automated maintenance and/or deployment leads to instability.
Keep in mind I don't mean "kernel panic" levels of instability or even "programs crashing" levels of instability. The smallest of changes can cause a mountain of work in large environments. Simply changing the icon of an often used program can cause a deluge of tickets.
This level of stability and control is something that macOS doesn't even come close to recognizing.
My MBP and its periodic gray screen of death begs to differ. Apple really needs to shore up its QA.