The wording you used makes it sound like they make buggy software on purpose, which makes no sense.
Actually, they do. Microsoft could spend more time and resources debugging it, or limit the number of use cases it addresses, make it simpler, support less hardware...
Obviously, they chose more functionality for the end user, a broader selection of supported hardware and shorter time to market. That comes with a price.
It's always a compromise. "Done is better than perfect"
And, to be fair, it could also be a hardware problem. You know, hardware has bugs too.
Of course, by that logic, since the same company that made my macbook did the hardware and the software, I'd expect it to be much more stable than my windows boxes, but sadly it is not.
What Apple (Jobs, really) did was always rehearse every keynote to exhaustion (his and everyone else's), until everything is absolutely perfect. Not everyone is as perfectionist as Jobs was.
I had IIS blue-screen on me in front of a full audience (yes, I once worked for the evil empire). And I did rehearse the damn thing a good couple times.
Apple controls the hardware, the software, and the user. This makes it a lot easier to appear bug-free.
I feel that it's almost the same principle - things may crash here and there but it's "no big deal" to most people.
Don't the hardware makers do that?