Imo it's more the other way around, but that's not necessarily bad. Arch (and Linux in general) gives you a lot more control, while windows tries to block the user from touching the internals. In my experience Arch breaks more often though, but when it breaks I can usually fix it. In Windows things usually work, but when they don't work you might be kinda screwed because the internals aren't that easy to reach.
This isn't something like an imo, that's just a plain fact. The whole thing Arch is absolutely famous for is being super complicated to use but giving the user very much control.
Arch is not complicated to use, just archinstall and type sudo pacman -Syu into a terminal every few days.
Most issues can be fixed with the wiki, if it's not documented, ask on the forum.
Arch is probably the easiest desktop operating system to use, if you take the time to learn it.
More real Linux experience: Your car doesn't have a switch for the turn signals, instead it has a bunch of unlabeled wires under the hood to activate them. When asking around online, people complain about you not knowing it outright, and not hooking up an automated switch to it.
Even more real linux experience: The turn signal is well documented, labeled really obviously, and anyone will point you in the proper direction, but when you use them the brakes stop working because of an undocumented bug in a proprietary windshield wiper driver, and only you seem to have this problem.
In the end people just complain that it's too complicated and just don't use the turn signals (seriously there's actually dumbasses who regularly or semi-regularly don't use their turn signals in real life).