Bundling the OS to the PC what gave a lot of mass appeal. See first sentence at 1990:Breakup.
The cost of Windows is still hidden on pre-installed machines. I doubt you pay the >$100 like for an OEM version when building our PC yourself. This was even better in the early days - when a PC was sold for thousands of dollars, a couple hundred bucks for the OS were not a big deal.
As for changing platforms : most people would not notice that they are using a popular Linux distro if they have a start menu with programs. Compatibility is an issue : I can't watch Netflix on Linux ( but can buy a set-top box for $100, running linux?!), I can't submit a CV (in most cases) in .pdf or .odf because recruiters want .docx, tc, etc. My wife was using windows, she had no trouble switching to Linux as a regular user. But she cannot vote for the french legislative elections from a Linux machine. Could continue...
So Windows became widespread because they had a very good business plan, and a functioning product "good enough" to establish a monopoly. But you cannot claim, in retrospective, that nothing better would have come up within a reasonable timeframe (5 years?), and neither will we know what personal computing could have been during the 1990s and 2000s had MS not succeeded securing their 90%+ market share with PCs early on.