Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. But then again I guess that's why you're an AC.
That article is from 2008 (seven years isn't exactly "nearly" a decade in my book) and reflects an issue specifically involving causes of crashes for Windows Vista about a year after the OS came out. And you'll notice that while Nvidia is the largest single contributor to that pie, less than 30% of crashes were their fault. And, actually, if you read the original article from which Engadget derived their story this is a study from specifically around the launch of Windows Vista, not its entire lifecycle. And the data is very vague, as they say in the article, "in theory, NVIDIA's proportion of total driver crashes could be inflated by a relatively small handful of systems with severe driver issues." So this statistic is actually pretty useless without additional data.
That also doesn't indicate anything having to do with non-system-crash related issues, such as non-fatal crashes or poor system performance. It's also reasonable to assume that Nvidia has since fixed that issue with Windows Vista, as I don't remember there being any kinds of crashing plagues involving Nvidia hardware in Windows 7, 8, 8.1, or even 10 Technical Preview.
and most of the time ATI cards have a better performance/price ratio too, as you can see in most articles, including tomhardware's "best graphics card for the money" series (90% or so have been ATI cards for as long as I remember).
From when, and in what categories? I'm not denying that AMD makes a good graphics card and they have delivered, and do deliver the most bang for your buck at certain price points, but your claim is flimsy at best since Tom's updates these almost quarterly, as GPU manufacturers release new hardware throughout the year, and across several performance/price points. So naturally when AMD releases a new GPU they're likely to take the top spot in the high performance category, just as it's likely that when Nvidia releases a new GPU they might take the top spot.