Most users say they want stability but when it comes to actually paying, unfortunately most users will only pay for features, especially new shinny ones that demo well. This is the challenge faced by software companies.
I keep using the product/service if it's stable. I have no use for a service with loads of nice features that don't work.
With 10.10 and 10.11 I had the same issue, caused by the kext from virtualbox. Removing it and installing version 5 solved everything and haven't had a kernel panic since then.
If not virtualbox, I'd look at other kext you might have there.
I really wish Microsoft had stayed the course and maintained separate desktop and mobile operating systems. Windows CE had problems, but they could have fixed that without messing with Windows.
I have a cheap Win8 tablet. It's weird. Quite slick in a lot of ways, but you can go back to the old UI and see where all the bodges are.
Mac is a much more viable choice today than in the past, and I think the Mac's slowly but steadily increasing market share has something to do with the perceived reliability and stability of the platform.
I'm only basing this off of personal experience. I have Windows at work and Mac at home.
Thankfully, OS X is cheap/free. I use OS X, Windows, and Arch literally every day of my life, both at work and home.
To be quite honest, I blame consumers for all this non-sense. No one wants to actually pay for software. I can go into this in a more nuanced fashion, but I seriously think software across the board is a good bit cheaper than it needs to be. From OS's to games and everything in between.
This is not some pedantic arm-chair econ101 argument; they are able to charge a higher price due to having OS X as part of the product, and they do.
Arch is actually for free.
That's a suspect claim. I am not saying the cost isn't accounted for, but claiming that they charge a premium simply because they have OS X is dubious at best. I don't consider OS X a selling point in any regard and I'm not sure even Apple could. Of course this is largely my opinion. I would find it kind of funny if they really considered it a selling point.
But for people who value specific software that is OSX-only or some of the features only found in OSX (like CoreAudio for music stuff) or the general interface polish and perceived stability, it doesn't matter if the Apple option costs $2000 and the other brand/build with similar core components costs $1000. If it doesn't run the platform you want/need then it doesn't matter that it's more bang for the buck.
Basically I default to Windows because for the things I do on a computer, it's got the most flexibility and options for hardware and software. Linux is missing too many applications I need/want and OSX only runs on machines that cost a good deal more while offering nothing I really need enough to justify the cost. But when I've needed or wanted to run an OSX application in the past (Final Cut Pro in my case several years ago) it just wasn't a question. The stuff I wanted to run and the hardware I needed to hook up required OSX so that's the only reason I shelled out for an Apple computer. If I could have done it without OSX I'd have saved the dough and put it into something else.
Admittedly, a good selling point for OS X is how well it handles the hardware -- the battery life is consistent and lasts long enough for my needs. I definitely use OS X more often when I'm traveling, and will relegate my development to that environment just to make sure the battery lasts.
The software ecosystem is definitely a selling point for some. I am not involved in multimedia production but I certainly can appreciate paying a premium amount to get the tools you want/need. Although whether this aspect can be fundamentally attributed to the OS or just a product of other things (audience, marketing, corporate deals, etc) is another conversation.
Good point, but I'm trying to stay completely agnostic of what Apple thinks: it's not Apple's cost that determines the price of a macbook (aside from setting a lower bound), it's what people are willing to pay.
I assume that people are willing to pay significantly more for macbooks in this universe, than in the parallel one where they have no OS. At least as much more as it costs Apple to develop it in the first place.
You are right, though, that I can hardly "claim" it :)
It's either OSX, or it's that shiny Apple logo