My 2017 15" MacBook Pro just broke down (not Apple's fault - someone spilled soda on it - thankfully, I have AppleCare+, which covers accidental damage), and it took them nearly 2 weeks to get it back to me (while I am trying to print an art show that goes up in a week and a half). Any other manufacturer of non-gaming laptops in the $3000 price range (I'm thinking mostly of HP and Lenovo, although Dell also has a workstation line) would have used on-site service to get the machine back in working order in a day or two.
Those other manufacturers also offer far superior hardware, especially in the areas of RAM and overall expandability. There is no other $3000 laptop that is limited to 16 GB, and there are machines in the same price range that can even take 64 GB - although MacOS has better RAM handling than Windows. The competition also offers more storage choices - removable and multiple PCIe SSDs are standard, and hard drive bays are options (you can choose between machines in the MBP 15" weight range without hard drive bays and machines a pound or so heavier that offer a hard drive bay). They offer USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports along with legacy ports - I actually love Thunderbolt 3 with my desktop docking station connected to two monitors, wired Ethernet and a few USB peripherals, but I wish I had one standard USB port, one HDMI and a SD reader for use on the road. I keep a USB-C to HDMI cable with my projector, but it doesn't do me any good if I have to present using an installed projector somewhere. I can't use a flash drive someone hands me without a stupid dongle.
Apple got a bunch of decisions right with the recent MacBook Pros, as well as the ones they got wrong. The machine is extremely fast - probably a combination of a well-optimized design, a low-cruft operating system and the ridiculously fast SSDs they use. The video card is actually a very good choice - a much faster card would consume a lot more power, and require additional cooling which would lead in turn to a much bigger and heavier system with radically reduced battery life - and AMD cards are much more competitive with NVidia in professional applications than they are in games. The few relatively reasonably sized 15" laptops with significantly faster video are specialized gaming machines that have made huge compromises to get the video card in (they either use much slower 15W CPUs or have essentially replaced the battery with a fan, leaving 1-2 hour battery lives). Anything else with faster video is either 17" or an inch-thick 15" machine that weighs 6 lbs. Apple's hardware quality is generally excellent (so are the expensive workstation models from HP and Lenovo).
I'd rather have 1/2 lb more weight to get more ports and the option of more RAM and additional SSD, but Apple doesn't offer that option...
Sadly, any other manufacturer means dealing with Windows... Windows has gotten better, but it still has several significant flaws. The biggest one is that it doesn't "just work" like a Mac does - there's still a lot of time wasted troubleshooting Windows that just isn't there on the Mac side (and a few things it won't do). Even though it's gotten more secure (and the Mac has slid backwards), you still have to spend more time messing with security. Color management has improved since the XP/Vista/7 "what color management" days, but it's no Mac. Windows drivers are still hell compared to Mac drivers that rarely give any problem (example: there are TWO drivers for the Canon Pro-series printers under Windows 10 - one that is very modern and supports 16-bit printing, but is missing most of the features and settings, and another that is feature-complete but uses an old architecture and doesn't support 16-bit printing). The Windows Registry still exists, and it's still an unstable swamp! The other reason I prefer to avoid Windows is that I NEED ad-blocking if I am going to use the Web at all - I have neurological issues that make singing, dancing ads unbearable. Safari with a couple of blockers is still the best way of getting rid of them!
I suspect that most of the instability in Windows is because it supports a couple of things the Mac doesn't. One is that it has enormous legacy compatibility, going all the way back to DOS in some cases. This is useful, but it comes at a cost. Second, it supports two kinds of problematic hardware that Apple has simply avoided supporting (along with an enormous range of millions of hardware configurations, while any given version of MacOS supports a couple of hundred configurations). I suspect the two types of configurations that add most of the instability are cheap junk and exotic gaming rigs, along with backward compatibility. If Microsoft pulled all support for features that only affect games out of Windows (or allowed an installation option that said "I don't intend to use games - do not install any gaming features"), and removed all kludges that support extremely cost-centric hardware, I suspect stability would increase markedly.
Apple has two good options to rectify this situation, and I hope they take one of them (unlikely as they may be). One would be to spin the Mac business off from the iPhone maker, either as a fully separate company or as a semi-independent subsidiary. Allowing the Mac division to exist more independently might cause them to focus on professional needs to a greater extent.
The second is to license the MacOS to one or two high-end PC makers for a limited number of models. Since a Mac is essentially a PC with specific components, it would be trivial to get it running on some workstation-level notebooks and desktops from other manufacturers (many of which have been Hackintoshed...). If Apple's worried about their profitable MacBook and iMac business, they could even set license terms that others can't build laptops with screen sizes 13" or smaller, or all-in-one desktops. I'd even like to see alternative hardware sold in Apple stores. Apple would probably make more money on the deal out of satisfied creative pros who find the 32 GB laptop or tower workstation they want than they'd lose on people picking alternatives (nobody's going to walk in to an Apple Store looking for a 12" MacBook and leave with a 17" ThinkPad running MacOS instead.
Microsoft also has an option that would help - I'd love to see a version of Windows for Workstations that leaves out all the unstable parts... Windows NT and 2000 were essentially this, and Windows 2000 was VERY stable (it had virus issues (not as many as XP), but it was extremely stable). Most games wouldn't run, and it had notably high hardware requirements for its time, but it was a better pro platform compared to contemporary alternatives than Windows has ever been since - XP was a huge step forward in features, but a significant step backward in stability.
What if Microsoft started with Windows 10, and did three things?
1.) Remove everything used only or primarily by games (including stripping gaming-only features out of graphics drivers).
2.) Remove legacy code that supports applications and peripherals beyond a certain age (5 years?)
3.) Set high hardware requirements (and possibly a restricted compatibility list like Apple does), removing pieces that support running Windows on junk hardware..
It might actually be easier to start with Windows Server and add things that desktops and laptops need, rather than stripping Windows 10, assuming they aren't the same code base to begin with...
I suspect the end product would be a significantly more stable, less buggy Windows that would appeal to a certain type of user. Of course, it couldn't be the only Windows - it would be terrible for home use, and it might not run on less expensive business desktops either. Since most games wouldn't run, a large portion of the market wouldn't touch it - but photographers, video pros, GIS mavens, architects and engineers?