For example:
We have two storages (e.g., SSD): /dev/sda and /dev/sdb. Install Windows on /dev/sdb (so it creates its own ESP); Install Linux on /dev/sda (so it creates its own ESP), with a normal/manual partitioning: - /boot/ (for Kernels I have 4 GiB+); - /boot/efi/ (commonly, from 128 to 512 MiB is enough); - Here I normally also have a swap partition, and separate: /home/, /var/; - Select Grub to be installed on the /dev/sda; Boot the Grub in /dev/sda; Update Grub within Linux, so it finds the Windows EFI on another drive via its os-prober.Here, I believe efibootmgr should show the existing EFI, or you could check it manually in /boot/efi after.
Windows should operate on its own ESP it created on its own storage, and don’t overwrite the Grub.
At voila!
Then Windows will fuck up your EFI entries. Which is not a big deal if you know what you are doing but a completely different story for the audience you are explicitly addressing here when you even explain how to check those entries in the first place.
Also you did not actually mention that fastboot needs to be disabled in Windows, thus a clueless person will not understand the random hardware errors on Linux caused by not properly initialized devices and will blame Linux.
(And let's not even talk about some of the really insane stuff like pre-installed Microsoft SecureBoot keys that brick you whole system when removed because idiotic OEMs signed their own hardware's EFI drivers with the keys already pre-installed just because they can...)
So no, it's not "quite odd to see so many people having the issue when Windows". That's what Windows is causing, often intentionally so. Is most of this easily fixable? Sure... But it's a very effective deterrent for many people, so they never reach the point where they understand and be able to fix that stuff.


Typical "let's impress idiots with big numbers" bullshit, just coincidently of course without any reference.
That's like telling that my electricity got cut off but to compensate I now use three times as many AA batteries a year (so about 6...).
We have already seen every variation of this bullshit, including the "See the exports to Russia's neighbour XY is going up by 100% to compensate for loss in direct exports to Russia... Sanctions aren't working!!!" stories that accidently always fail to mention a factor of 100 or more between the lost Russian trade and the now doubled trade to another country. Or in other words: "99%+ of sanctions are successful" should have been the actual headline but was not matching the narrative they tried to push.