Updated.
I have used Microsoft Office for many years and wanted to see how LibreOffice has come along in the meantime and it does not do as well as I would have hoped for on Windows. There is no included updater tool as in Firefox, so my old version stopped working completely (frozen UI) and the ancient hassle to download .exe files. Not a great start.
The dark mode switch causes buttons to be in the wrong colour looking like a buggy mess until a restart, but even then some of the icons and application colours were not applied correctly until I manually changed them so.
The ribbon view in Calc has its setting burger button on the right and it opens on another screen next to it?
What completely breaks it for me is the broken window resize. The ribbon tab titles are not rescaled and become inconveniently small. I then discovered the the compact grouped view and it made a better initial impression on me. Then I snapped the the window to the left and the UI is just cut off. Manually resizing it horizontally just breaks everything even more until the UI is empty and the rest is moved into the arrow.
The old school UI view meanwhile works and resizes, but it might be the slowest and laggiest UI on resize with goofy stretching I have seen in quite some time.
Also I really think the default theming and the 6 presets are questionable in fashion, but this is the least of its problems.
Wondering what happened to the development of LibreOffice? There are definitive improvements and probably there are even better under the hood changes, but why would such a large project ship such a bad experience? Was the core of the UI never touched the past 15 years? I have to to use an alternative.
EDIT: Resize runs better after forcing Skia Software renderer. Should not have to do that with an up to date AMD driver. Skia/Vulkan was the culprit. Disabling Skia leads to flicker on resize, so even more rendering bugs.
The windows store is really just a single application repository though, not a full featured package management system e.g. one that updates the operating system itself or allows alternative repository sources.
What does it matter outside of definition games?
Function. In this case it's not just a matter of definitions because the windows options do not offer the same utility and convenience I've come to expect from a package manager for the last decade or more. It's a bit like me asking for a chocolate chip cookie and someone handing me a handful of chocolate chips and a cup of flour and wondering why I look disappointed.
I expect a package manager to handle all of my packages, be they system or third party. I also expect to be able to add repositories from developers for apps I need to be more up to date than the default system versions. This functions to also allow applications to be managed that aren't in the default repositories at all. I expect to be able to handle all updates with a simple command and be able to schedule those updates for when it suites my convenience, not when the operating system developers see fit. Those are the things I mean when I call something a package manager.
I think you are describing winget.
It has a few issues but offered most of what you are asking for.
Windows Update does the system in the background. Microsoft distributes their apps through Windows Store and so can third parties sign up there in principle, it has restrictions unfortunately, but to say there is absolutely nothing is not quite correct. And by this point so many apps have their own integrated updaters it is to be expected. I understand it is nothing like Linux still.
I know how it works. And I'm saying it doesn't work for me. Ubuntu has an app store too and it fails for the same reasons the Windows store fails. Only windows and Mac users expect such a fragmentary and redundant system of what you call "integrated" updates.