WetGeek Windows is not FOSS. If they can't get their OS installed, they don't get paid for it. That's a simplification, of course, but they're highly incentivised to make sure their OS will install on any compjuter.
Yup. You've just identified the problem. Developers/maintainers of the Linux kernel have little or no incentive to shape the kernel in the direction of consumer desktop computers or waste limited resources doing so. Microsoft, on the other hand, has enormous financial incentives to do whatever it takes to continue to dominate the consumer market.
The bulk of the kernel's code and financial support comes from companies focused on the server, cloud and Android markets. To the extent that Linux on the desktop is supported, the focus is on business/enterprise computers rather than consumer computers. The financial incentives are all on the side of shaping the kernel to run efficiently on servers and business/enterprise computers.
That's why you see high levels of support for all-Intel setups and lousy support for consumer outliers like NVIDIA, AMD and RealTek. It is a chicken and egg problem, in the sense that Linux has about 1-2% of the gaming market, for example, so NVIDIA has little incentive to dump resources into well-designed Linux drivers, but the Linux gaming market isn't going to grow unless and until NVIDIA does so. Everywhere I look at the Linux consumer desktop market, I see the story replayed over and over again.
Reading Linux boards over the years, I've been impressed with the strength of the idea that Linux is community-based, developed by and for altruistic FOSS believers. I think that's a myth, myself, and I think my observation is supported by the fact that Linux dominates the server, cloud and Android markets, where there is plenty of money being made by the companies developing for and profiting from those markets, and the fact that Linux doesn't seem to be able to get its act together in the consumer desktop market, where there is no money to be made.
