What does "more careful" even mean? For instance, if your crappy SSD has some bug that causes data corruption if there are more than 16 writes in flight at a time, and microsoft pushes an update that causes it to do writes more aggressively, should it really be microsoft's fault that your crappy SSD broke? Should microsoft keep throttle windows IO at 2000s HDD throguhput on the off chance that some IDE drive bricks itself when it encounters SSD level workloads?
It seems increasingly these problems (including the NVIDIA one) are only cropping up on 24H2 machines which is why I've decided to stick with 23H2 until it's out of its support window. Unfortunately that's coming up pretty soon.
[1]https://www.neowin.net/news/nvidia-fixes-windows-11-24h2-dri...
see sibling comment for something similar happening on zfs. linux is also filled with workarounds for crappy SSDs, so "SSDs breaking due to software" isn't exactly exclusively a windows problem. It just gets more attention because of the bigger user base.
>This suggests that this kind of strain on the hardware is unnecessary given the task, which then paints a picture of negligent sloppiness in engineering and QA culture at MS.
"straining hardware" shouldn't be a thing for PC components. If it can't handle a given workload, it should throttle/queue the requests, not brick itself. I can grant some leeway for long term wear (eg. heat damage or electromigration), but that's clearly not what's happening here. Can you imagine a network card that bricks itself if you send too many packets, and you have to baby it with how many packets you send in any given amount of time?
I don't think Windows has the most hardware compatibility issues.