No doubt a number of PC vendors were able to quickly design and manufacture a new motherboard that works ok. Someone was able to make drivers that work ok. Someone was able to procure sets of parts from some set of manufacturers for some relatively small number of units to be able to manufacture them and bring them to market fast. Support folks may have some documentation in whats in this batch and may have some inkling if the common problems with this batch.
But is this set of motherboards optimal - no. Future sets, including Apples will perform better. Are these early drivers optimal (let alone stable) - NO, again future drivers will be faster and more stable - including Apple's. It this batch of machines the same as the next batch - NO, and will this batch have the same issues as the next batch NO, and will support be able to deliver a good quality support experience most of the time on these small ever changing batches - NO.
Its just a difference in philosophy. The folks at Apple are not stupid or slow any more than the PC folks are incompetent but fast. The different drivers result in different timelines and different outcomes.
Apple differentiates based on the whole user experience not on big feature lists or leading edge specs. That emphasis costs more and is harder to sell. One of the reasons Apple has a relatively small market share.
Not to beat a dead analogy, but you will always have less Lexus, Acura and Infinity drivers out there than Toyota, Honda, and Nissan drivers. Some will argue that the premium brand are not really and better and they are just over priced, and the Premium drivers will be happy with their "overpriced" user experience. Some will even Argue that their Dodge Neon RT has better specs than that Mercedes AMG CLK and those Mercedes owners just most be crazy. And hey' Mercedes, why can't you have more models and why can't they be cheaper, and why can't they have the specs of my great Neon RT? Yeah, to each their own.
First, I normally agree with most of what you say, and I enjoy your posts. Right now, I think you're being too big of a fan to be realistic, open, and truthful about how much you're paying to
compromise. Make no mistake about it, your safety and stability with beautiful user interface is coming at a HUGE cost in performance and capabilities.
Actually, a good number of people will tell you that Apple is one of the worst at writing drivers. Apple uses such a limited number of components across all models so it doesn't have to worry about writing many drivers. The philosophy works great on paper, but it has been the leading factor of Macs being stuck on the same components for years. Then 9400m (introduced October 2008) is a great example. It's a nice way to run certain systems, but Apple has taken it overboard because they don't want to have to write another driver. It's in every Mac product except the Mac Pro... and if Apple had its way it would be there too!
I wish OS X were everything grand, as it could be really great. However, Apple's model is quickly going mainstream consumer and it leaves the professional much to be desired. Be realistic about what OS X is and isn't. Is it stable, yes. Why is it stable, Apple uses few components and allows almost no customization so it doesn't have to write new drivers or support them. In fact, some of Windows biggest problems are having to be compatible with tens of thousands of components from many hundreds of suppliers. When Windows has quality written drivers, like mainstream suppliers include, it's something amazing. Realize that you have a poor selection with the Mac to get around this... and if you were selective about the PC you purchase, ensuring it uses top components, you would realize that Windows 7 is just as stable and provides better performance because it can be designed to use far superior components.
OS X is terrible at certain other things like Flash is horrible and Quicktime is inefficient. In fact, any video playback is worthless on OS X versus Windows. Apple is going so cheap on components that it cannot even provide dedicated graphics RAM. Apple gets its cake and can eat it too; meaning Apple charges the highest prices and one would assume it means its Macs get top tier components, but Apple actually uses low end (mid-line) components.
Apple focuses on the inexpensive "extras" to sell you the grand system called the Mac. Think about the aluminum case... $5 in raw material costs, backlit keyboard... $1 in LED bulbs, shiny display... $2 in sand (glass), glass buttonless trackpad... $2 in sand (glass). Apple is KING at this. It works on making its products look amazing to the consumer. It ensures that it has all of the extras the PCs don't have, yet it makes us believe we NEED these things for computing. A backlit keyboard isn't necessary for most, but we are convinced we NEED it to function. Through all of this, the professionals are dearly paying the price and getting beautiful Macs that aren't half as capable as their PC counterparts.
Look, you have to admit that Apple, the Mac, and OS X is a huge compromise in performance and selection to get the "safety" you so desire. Its user interface and stability come at a huge price in actual costs, and one needs to buy a Mac right when it's released to get the best value. Otherwise people are getting seven month old technology at seven month ago pricing. With PCs, they become irrelevant after three months and are updated with new components. That means if you don't buy right when Apple releases something, you have to wait until it's updated to get a better value. Apple doesn't reduce the price, because most CONSUMERS, LIKE YOU, don't care about the component makeup being old and inferior... they want "stability" and beauty. That mindset you have is exactly what Apple wants you to have!
I love the Mac, but I know that the OS/user interface comes at a huge cost. I also can fairly asses Windows 7 vs. OS X. In fact, my MBA runs Windows 7 great, perhaps even better than OS X.
It's one thing to enjoy the Mac, but you still should understand the loss/compromises you make using it. If you're just a "consumer" all that really matters is that it works... and that's where you are. But understand the argument you're making before you discount other alternative arguments. In fact, I believe that the majority of professionals would be much better off on Windows 7, and I believe that most consumers would be much better off on the Mac. Apple took an alternative route (it started with the media/graphics/entertainment professionals) and it's now becoming apparent to Apple that its products are for CONSUMERS and NOT professionals. Most professionals would agree with this if they really thought about both sides of the argument.