Unfortunately, it was all of our responsibility to make sure our neighbors didn't turn out to be uneducated assholes, and we collectively failed. As it turns out, abdicating that responsibility to a department of education in a far-away land didn't actually satisfy the need.
So say we all.
Apple is its own thing. It is not fully inconceivable that the feds (and therefore everyone else) would switch to MacOS if Windows became [even more] unsupportable, but I doubt Microsoft can provide Office at even the sad level it achieves on Windows and it would take Apple time to ramp up supply.
Linux is an easy sell unless people are hooked on some application or game that doesn't run on it, then it's hard. The interface is familiar enough now (especially with KDE, but there are some other basically credible options) that they won't have a lot of room to complain so long as they don't have problems. That part is going to depend on the hardware, and IME they will have the fewest problems with AMD CPU and GPU now. If they have Intel it might or might not be OK; if they've got Nvidia they're likely to have a bad time at least sometimes.
Business is increasingly using web-based tools for everything, which is not itselft a bad thing- if only more of them were self-hosted. But either way, this decreases the dependence on Windows. I've worked where there's a few Windows machines for clerical staff, or where there's a Mac for the graphics department. That can be Windows' fate again.
I don't see why this couldn't be done. It just requires the intention, these companies have the money to do it.
They have to also have the balls to have a winning formula, like put the nerds with successful histories in charge and let them make decisions and spend money. Instead they want to design everything by committee, and everyone wants to have the biggest piece of the pie. The more companies you combine the less successful it is likely to be. See: Every fucking project like this ever between any of the principals you named here.
Do you need high performance or only compatibility? If the latter, you can at least stuff Windows into a VM for your own protection. Only the graphics performance is poor, but the graphics functionality is also poor.
I believe the OS uses less RAM, but that doesn't change application memory use overall. If applications make inefficient use of resources, there's only so much the OS can do to improve that. It's not like iOS where it's on lock, developers are free to do things not-the-Apple-way.
I found this review of the Neo illuminating. His take is that the market for cheap Windows laptops is a mess. There are some decent computers, but they're mixed in with a whole lot of garbage. The fatal flaws are often things you can't learn from a spec sheet, like that the screen looks terrible or the keyboard is awful. Even if you find a usable one you can't recommend it to anyone else, because all the models churn constantly. By the time they get to the store, there's a good chance it will already have been discontinued and replaced with a much worse one with an almost identical model number.
That's why the Neo is a big deal. It's a cheap laptop you can recommend to someone else. It still cuts corners to keep the price down, but it mostly cuts the right corners. It's usable, and if you recommend it to someone you know what they'll be getting.
So yeah, a faster CPU is nice but the CPU speed wasn't the problem to begin with.
The moon is a planet just like the Earth, only it is even deader.