Bill Gates is often seen as a villain because of the late 1990s behavior of Microsoft and the quality of some of their flagship products (Windows and IE). It can be hard to separate perceptions of Bill Gates the man/philanthropist from Bill Gates the businessman. Perceptions of Bill Gates are colored by BSoD's, IE's non-compliance to standards, Frontpage creating pages that only rendered in IE, and awkward conventions and interfaces in several popular pieces of software.
(I personally think very highly of Bill and Melinda Gates for their charitable work.)
OSX wasn't even properly exist.
I used it during that decade on an x86 desktop, on a SPARC laptop made by Tadpole, and on an HP PA-RISC "gecko" workstation. It was awesome.
And so it should be for what it cost back in the day. Windows PCs made computing affordable for Jo(e) Consumer, there's no getting away from that.
I also used web browsers from Mosaic through the Netscape line, Opera, and IE. As late as 2001, IE was doing its own thing with regards to certain standards, and Frontpage was putting out broken HTML that only IE would render (leaving off /table tags, for example.)
There was plenty to criticize Microsoft for in that era. Seeing as the discussion is "why don't people give Bill Gates his due", I think it's perfectly valid to point out that some people still harbor some resentment from that era.
You should probably 'get over yourself' (I really hate that phrase, so I figured I'd throw that in there).
If you go back to 1988, and compare a DOS machine to say, an Amiga - how could anyone say that Microsoft did the world good by ensuring that the primitive, clunky, non-user friendly junk that was DOS beat out the relatively amazing competition?
So, Gates shoved this awful crap on us to make himself rich, regardless of the consequences. I can't respect a software company that has never appeared to be concerned with or even understand software quality.