The book was released in 1984. Could it be that his descriptions of tech were just true to the times? I imagine his stylistic embellishments were also important in the same way older movies about technology (e.g. Hackers[0]) stylize digital events.
Here is an interview with Gibson where he talks about it: https://www.wired.com/2012/09/interview-with-william-gibson/
(For the record he talks about it in agreement, he thinks he himself could write a good takedown of the technology).
I suppose a critique of "not sufficiently prescient" is supported by it, but "known at the time of publication that it got the IT wrong", which is what I think the GP was saying, isn't.
Criticizing it for not being "true to IT" was the furthest thing from my mind.
Though I later found out it might not have been quite the first to go there, to me it seemed to herald a paradigm shift in scifi, towards a much grittier, darker future where one could inhabit (or, in a certain sense, commune) with computers. It was kind of like a darker version of Tron, which came out only a couple of years earlier.
Sure, it might not have been like using computers in real life, but it was not pretending to be about the current reality. It was scifi. It was about a possible future.
Horses for courses, and all that.