The core of my question was something completely different.

I think I should better have left out any comparison to another OS. This part is actually only there to underpin my basic assumption. That is that macOS is as it stands right now quite terribly broken.

If even Apple friendly media starts to complain loudly and this gets some traction over here where people are usually quite objective, and just at the same time I read how macOS fails in regard to most basic OS functionality (memory management, which is at the core of an OS) I take it as a fact that macOS is utterly broken.

Now discussing whether the other mentioned OS is even more broken is the exact flame that I wanted to rather avoid.

I fully agree that crashing to reboot is an unbearable catastrophic failure. But that's not the point.

The question was how a product which (also) fails in catastrophic manners seems bearable to otherwise mostly reasonable people.

If I would've got a computer that needs to be restarted at least once a day as the system has eaten all memory for no reason (or it would just restart itself for no reason) I would look for something else. That's for sure!

In the case of Linux crashing you can at least try your luck with some other hardware (or just distribution). There are rumors that Linux runs rock stable on some machines. So catastrophic failures like spontaneous reboots aren't at least a fundamental and general flaw of this system.

In case of the current Apple issues on the other hand there is not much room to escape though. Also those issues seem to be quite fundamental (like an OS with a more or less completely broken memory management), and also affect more often than not large parts of the user base (if not even everybody as it is, or was lately, the case with a lot of other severe macOS bugs). But people stick to those products despite their severe failures. That's the part I don't get. Honestly, as said already before. Like I would not stick with a computer that self reboots randomly (if I couldn't repair it) I would also not stick with machines that start to have flaws like Windows ME. Especially as there is nothing you can really do about such a problems despite hoping for some good will at Apple.

Even this thread is quite long I didn't see good answers until now. People don't tell why they stick with a broken system they can't repair themself but try to point out that other systems could be equally broken. Despite this is obviously not true as for some people even Windows works fine most of the time. Which, again, can't be said about the current state of macOS. By now one can see die-hard fans complaining loudly, usually about issues that fall in the category of catastrophic failures. Still the majority seems to endure those troubles. Otherwise one would see consequences on Apple's balance sheet.

Maybe it's me who doesn't see the great value proposition that lets one forget about everything else. That also part of the reason I'm asking. I was hopping that I would get some meaningful answers at least here. But despite the usual "everything's equally broken, it makes no difference" (which to some degree is of course right, but only to some degree as pointed out above) or the just nonsensical but also usual "the other stuff is even more broken" (which is objectively not true at this point in time) there wasn't much… I'm wondering whether gaining no new insights was worth bringing up a question which provoked (as expected) mostly down votes. Maybe I have to accept that some human behavior doesn't have any rational explanation and asking about those things only causes troubles.