Virtually the only differences between Linux distros as far as hardware support is concerned are: (1) kernel version; and (2) handling of non-free drivers.
Mint isn't a panacea. Neither are Arch or Gentoo. You actually have to figure out what the problem is.
This constant distro jumping current-year Linux users recommend to each other as an easy fix is a huge waste of time.
Here's the difference that people give a shit about though.
Mint comes pre-configured and pre-packaged with everything you'd expect from a desktop OS.
Arch is a DIY solution where you have to go through multiple console commands (or archinstall's TUI) to set up a desktop OS that you'll have to gradually expand as you go.
Omarchy pre-configures Arch so that you get a ready-to-go TWM environment with various dependencies.
People don't want to rice the everloving fuck out of their OS or constantly work on it's internals, and it's a sentiment that's also prevalent in the Linux userbase. This idea of "you have to constantly fuck with the command like" that Arch is based on is one of the main forces that drive people away from trying Linux. People just want to use their computers and not have to tinker with it just to get it going. That's why Windows held such a stronghold on the desktop OS market until the recent years where it now becomes a hassle to have it not get in your way, and when people turn to Linux, they turn to Mint or Bazzite, as those come pre-configured in such a way where you just install it and use it and not worry about anything else.
The "easy fix" people are looking for is a distro that comes pre-packaged with everything needed for you to not worry about the OS you're using. That's what people ultimately want. There's a reason people who use Linux professionally go for such pre-configured distros instead of ricing Arch or Gentoo like some no-life neckbeard.
Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, which most of the Linux community wants to burn on a stake. Why? Because it works, he doesn't want to fuck around with his computer just to get his work done and in his personal experience Fedora is what gives him that.
I mean...
This speech still holds true. All of his gripes with desktop Linux come from his personal experience with it and plenty of people share his sentiment for a good reason. Desktop Linux is a mess and people just want a desktop Linux distro that doesn't suck ass. For most Arch
will suck ass as they don't want a DIY project for their daily driver, even if technically you could rice it to the point where it "just works". It's not a hard concept to grasp if you're able to be considerate of other people's needs and expectations.