Number 2 is a lot about human nature. Separate systems often means separate password. More passwords means lost passwords, or worse, passwords written on post-it notes. There will always be single points of failure therefore IT professionals must find better ways to mitigate the risk. Especially for mission-critical systems.
Number 3 is unavoidable. It is not about system design, it is about the size of the target. Windows is no more or less vulnerable than Linux or MacOS X. Nevertheless, With 90% of desktops, worldwide, running Windows, and with a very large number of those being operated by end-users, you are correct that end-user education is a problem. You are also correct that tools like UAC simply frustrate users. It does not help that social networks train end-users to expect unsolicited e-mail from entities they are not familiar with. Further, unscrupulous vendors trick users into believing that their computer is infected when it is not so they can sell them some completely worthless piece of software.
The most vulnerable component of any full-featured OS (other than the end-user him/her self) is the buffer overflow. Operating Systems designers must not only think about how the OS is supposed to be but also how it might be used improperly used and to remove that possibility. As with any human endeavor, for every human who can figure out how to mitigate a vulnerability, there is another human who can find away to get around the mitigation. With such a large number of human users of widely varying experience level and awareness, Windows is just too easy a target.
Number 4 is simple to understand. No printer vendor can afford to have their printer be generic. A generic printed becomes a commodity printer and the end user will never shop by brand name if all printers were the same.
Don't believe me? Over the last two years, we have watched all the "generic" Android tablet vendors chase each other down to the $199 price-point and none of them are making a lot of money on their products. Meanwhile, Apple has stayed above the fray, keeping themselves firmly in the $499+ price range for the mainstream line. Even the iPad mini is perceived by many as overpriced but Apple will remain profitable thanks to their attention to detail. It remains to be seen if the Microsoft Surface can compete at Apple price-points.
Number 5. Yes, as with #4, this is about competitive advantage. The only real "standards" are the "de facto" standards defined when the majority of end-users pick one vendor.
Oddly, your number 7 is the very thing Microsoft is trying to do to address your concerns in Number 3. Users crave change until it changes something they like, then they hate it.
Number 8, same problem as 4 & 5. Interoperability defeats competitive advantage. We simply do not (nor would we want to) live in George Orwell's novel "1984".
Number 9 is strictly a matter or personal preference. Don't like it? Don't use it. Microsoft will change whatever it needs to in order to keep its core customers engaged.
Number 10. Because HDD devices cost about $0.10 per GB at retail. SSD devices cost about $1 per GB and SDD devices are still limited to about 256GB while HDD drives go up to 2TB,. For $100 you can get a 128GB SSD or a 1TB HDD. When the typical HDD outlives the PC you just bought, why would you spend ten times as much for SSD storage?
Ultimately, this are not broken technologies. They are trade-offs that end-users and vendors alike must choose in order to sell their products to a maximum number of people at the lowest cost. Apple's choices are different than Microsoft's and user's choices keep both companies profitable. What more can we ask for as consumers other than clear choices from multiple vendors.
Keep Up with TechRepublic