Uh, those are all wrappers around apt, hence you are using a single install system instead of having a standard way to record installed packages.
Then I don't understand your original point. MSI is a parallel to dpkg in this context.
For YOU. Not me, or any other person who uses free software and Unix for its rational benefits over the alternatives.

That's funny. I use free software and Unix for its rational benefits over the alternatives, and I still have a harder time getting basic desktop tasks done on Linux than on Windows.
I omitted "on the desktop" from my earlier statement.
Face it, all the standard things which people expect to be able to do with their PC are easier and work better on Windows.
I submit that is false in my case. Guess I'm not part of "people", eh?
Everything from working with MS Office documents (obviously)
:) Duh, just like it's easier to install a MSI-packaged program in windows, or it's easier to run an iptables script in Linux. How can you compare two systems on the basis of software that was intentionally only made available for one of those systems?
to ripping a DVD to a SVCD (less obviously)
Um, okay... try http://www.exit1.org/dvdrip/
to playing a DVD (of course)
One click and a DVD inserted into my drive is playing in mplayer.
is easier and faster on windows.
This is perception, and it's anecdotal. Unless you post some numbers, and the exact context within which those numbers were obtained, we can only accept or reject this claim at face value.
No rebooting to play windows games,
*shrug* I have so many games at my fingertips I'd never be able to play them all, so this doesn't matter to me personally. However, I am a 3X-monthly subscriber to Transgaming in the hopes that their software will eventually become perfect enough to satisfy even you.
no problem viewing quicktime movies,
Codeweavers Crossover plugin does this for you and costs less than the Quicktime non-crippleware app does.
Also windows networking is easier than setting up samba
??? samba IS windows networking. If you're complaining about the configuration, any good distro handles the configuration through its own system. Debian's samba configuration consists of a few questions about the network and what shares you desire. If you're complaining about the client side, look at Gnomba. And realize that SMB was intended to be a proprietary solution, and it's only by luck and hard work that we happen to have an interoperable solution.
Hopefully coda will bring this to free/open systems soon, but it's still in its infancy really in spite of the fact that it mostly works.
AFS is a far better solution for a network filesystem than SMB or NFS, and is nearly 20 years mature. (See www.openafs.org for more information.) Coda was developed as a branch from AFS. Coda's only advantage is that it supports detached operation on filesystems, so that you could take a notebook with you for instance, and have your work be automatically updated on your Coda cell when you plug your laptop back into the network at home. Coda has numerous disadvantages, in that releases are slow, it scales poorly, and has nearly nonexistent support for any uncommon OS. The only real problem with AFS is that it is a complex system and takes time to understand enough to administer it. However, it is a snap to use and far more transparent than the "other" network filesystems.
I didn't say you couldn't DO things on Linux, but the fact is that Windows typically does desktop tasks better and/or faster than Unix simply because that's where the software is. It's not a statement of the quality of one platform or another.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing your post because you claimed quality of the system itself is lower (since you didn't!). But my point is that the quality of the desktop experience is highly subjective, and people like me who use, enjoy, and would prefer it over the alternatives cannot just be chalked up to "cognitive dissonants" like everyone else in this thread is trying to claim.