I disagree, to a point, on Linux is not like Windows.
You are certainly free to disagree, but that will not make what is in fact a free and open source UNIX implementation based on a monolithic kernel, similar to a closed proprietary OS built on a hybrid microkernel, which is not a UNIX by any definition of the word.
For many, of your everyday computer user, that just want to create Office files, Print, Browse the Internet and read Email, they are no longer very much different at all, pretty much ready to go out of the box, for the most popular distros.
An OS is similar to another OS in that respect, but that's where the similarity ends (thankfully).
The only real exception is drivers for some hardware and WiFi, but that also can happen on Windows.
Windows uses a completely different kernel and driver model (NDIS), so this is far from an exception. The whole process of installing, enabling and using drivers in Linux is completely different to windows. There is no similarity whatsoever. This confuses the uninitiated who are used to plugging in hardware throwing a disk in the drive and trying to install a driver.
With the slightest bit of learning some terminal commands, you can kick Windows to the curb easily. Even that may not be necessary, there are just certain things I like to do with terminal, for all I know, it may be easily done through the GUI.
Windows was built from the ground up (since the first windows NT releases) to be a completely GUI based OS. *nix systems are not built in this way and almost certainly never will be - simply because it is poor design.
If a command line tool exists and it works well, there is no sense in creating a GUI tool (based on e.g. gtk+ or Qt) to do the same job, unless there is a real demand for it. Often there is, on many occasions there isn't and often the GUI tool just adds complexity and layers of obfuscation and doesn't help the end user to learn about their system. The GUI tool is more often than not just a front end to the CLI tool - and that's exactly how it should be in fact. If one day the GUI tool doesn't work, because the user broke something or an update included a bug, the user has to resort to the CLI "back end" to the GUI tool.
//edit:
Perhaps the point is not "Widows like" but "Easy to use and able to do what I need". If you work with office files, LibreOffice will do. If you play music, edit music, play videos, edit videos, view pictures and edit pictures, then you can use Linux alternatives. (Gimp,AfterShot Pro,Cinelarra,OpenShot, Audacity,Ardour,Shotwell,clementine,VLC, XBMC)
This makes more sense, but then there is no need for a comparison with windows in the first place... It should suffice to say that e.g. "GNU/Linux is a usable OS and alternative to proprietary operating systems".
For the question: "can this replace windows", the answer should be no. One OS is not a simple drop in replacement for another, there are always going to caveats and exceptions and for some people, not being able to do one simple thing can be the deal breaker..