Sure, it's one-sided and focuses on the bad. We all know the good about the Windows desktop -- software compatibility, power, flexibility, etc. I use the Windows desktop most of the time.
But this article is inspired by the way I see average users like my parents struggling with Windows in the real world, trying in vain to not get malware and getting infected anyway, getting the Ask Toolbar on their computer because of installing a Java security update, being unable to properly figure out all the security updates they need to keep track of (oops, there was an insecure browser plugin you had from a long time ago, that could've infected you), putting up with the bloatware on their computer that can add minutes to a new PC's boot time, using IE 9 because their computer is stuck on Windows Vista.
Windows requires a lot of its users. It's worth it to me, but it's not worth it to my parents. And it's not worth it to so many other people struggling with this.
What's really frustrating to me is that MIcrosoft DOES admit this. They position the Surface with Windows RT as the device for average people. Microsoft's messaging is that average people need a more secure, locked-down system that isn't as complex as the desktop.
So yes, it's negative, and it's inspired by me trying to help real people struggle with Windows when they should use something more simple instead. I'm sick of the neverending stream of problems I see people like my parents have with Windows. And they get nothing out of it. They just get to use a web browser and Office. That's it.
Of course, I'm still writing this from my (Windows 7) desktop at the moment. It's a powerful tool, but not one that everyone can or should try to handle.