There is a difference between simplicity and being downright sadistic on how many less features your interface has over the last one.
Plus I think people here have the wrong idea on what the word "simplistic" means to some people.
For me simplistic means something that is easy to use, so easy that I could give it to an elderly person or a kid who is old enough to use a computer and they can use it with little to no issue.
Now by all means even windows cant fully do this as you still need a point of reference and some helpful tips to keep the system running.
Now of course this is where windows has the advantage as its so widely used that it doesnt take long to find help with it.
Linux doesnt have that advantage so whatever user interface it gives by default must be at least somewhat good enough to stand out.
Unity as much crap I give to it sometimes is still a very easy to use interface, its simple nature is in the way it works and behaves as it allows the end user a sense of power over their machine without having to learn a lot.
The current gnome approach is that it wants to be so different that it complicates things without reason and when you try to use the thing on a normal everyday basis it becomes a nerve racking experience.
Now most linux users dont seem to mind this as the "do it yourself" approach is behind the whole linux mindset.
But its like comparing a pre fabricated apartment or house will all that you need to have a good time or having a vacant lot where you have to build everything from the ground up.
Its clear that Gnome is a true hobbyist interface, but every time you look there is something new missing.
Something that makes the experience far harder and more difficult then what it should be.
Its no wonder why gnome 3 has so many forks and variants, the gnome 3 developers are completely insane and lost touch with the normal every day user.
They want hard coding action and could care less on how many features it doesnt have anymore but should.