Rather agree. I'm sure there'll be a bit in it in terms of efficiency and comfort, since Colemak is more recent, but Dvorak is available on Windows out of the box.
I switched to Dvorak over 20 years ago and I've been quite happy with its availability. I use Dvorak shortcuts (so, for example, w and v are next to one another), and standard Emacs bindings, and when I used vim I used the standard bindings with that too. Main issue I've faced is that some programs use WASD, and they do it by keycap rather than scancode, so now the controls are wonky.
(Regarding QWERTY speed, I type on a split keyboard on my own PC, which has helped keep my QWERTY muscle memory fairly good; people that see me type are often surprised that it's not what I'm used to. I can barely type Dvorak on a normal keyboard, though, and I have to look at the keys to type QWERTY on a split keyboard.)
I switched to Dvorak over 20 years ago and I've been quite happy with its availability. I use Dvorak shortcuts (so, for example, w and v are next to one another), and standard Emacs bindings, and when I used vim I used the standard bindings with that too. Main issue I've faced is that some programs use WASD, and they do it by keycap rather than scancode, so now the controls are wonky.
(Regarding QWERTY speed, I type on a split keyboard on my own PC, which has helped keep my QWERTY muscle memory fairly good; people that see me type are often surprised that it's not what I'm used to. I can barely type Dvorak on a normal keyboard, though, and I have to look at the keys to type QWERTY on a split keyboard.)