Of course it's easier to write software to a known set of hardware. Apple only use a tiny subset of the hardware that's available for Windows and they know exactly who made it and to what standard - because they specify it or pick it off the manufactures list themselves.
What do you think other manufacturers are doing? It's hardly as if they're randomly choosing hardware without consideration to how it operates. They know the hardware they will use, and they will write drivers to work with the OS - exactly the same as Apple has to do.
Like i said before, its been a while since Apple spec'd the hardware and wrote the software for the entire machine, it just doesn't happen any more. (None of the major players do it any more)
Windows has to cope with every PC piece of kit made by anyone anywhere and anywhen. I built my first PC from bits of broken PCs bought from eBay - it needed a lot of pushing and pulling but it worked eventually.
Sorry again this is completely about-face. Windows doesn't have too (Windows doesn't come with drivers for every piece of hardware in existence and they don't even try too), instead those who made the hardware integrate it with Windows. So when HP or Lenevo decide to use that hardware, they give them a driver so it works - just like they do for Apple.
I'm sure you're aware that some hardware is better than others and that some make a better fist of being compatible than others. Open standards are great, but the downside is all manner of incompatibility issues that is outside the remit of the OS to fix.
This as a statement doesn't even make sense. Open Standards with a downside of incompatibility issues? How is that possible? It must be possible to fix it within the confines of the OS because you're writing a driver for it. Open Standards are very well defined. (But granted, there can be differing levels of competence in programming)
Likewise with hardware, when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it, an Apple Computer is using the same parts from the same suppliers as everyone else. There are only so many suppliers of CPU's, of RAM, of MB's etc... Samsung are a huge supplier of Apple semiconductors.
Have a look at this page of the largest semiconductor suppliers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year
These guys are the real muscle behind the whole computer industry, and are hardly tin-pot companies.
Or try the largest foundries. These are the guys like above, but doing the hard work on behalf of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundry_model
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with Win 7 or even XP for that matter (Vista was an opportunist POS though) and the fact that it will run on any old rubbish so long as it conforms roughly to standard is a good thing. It means you can buy a PC for a few hundred quid and mostly it'll be fine.
It doesn't mean it HAS to run on rubbish hardware or that a good PC can't be built for Win 7 - of course it can, I've had some amazing PCs and for a lot less money than a Mac.
But again it's hard to understand your point - because you quiet clearly state Windows will run on any old rubbish - but earlier mention how hard it is for Windows because of the hardware differences. Plus Win 7 (The decent one with Aero and other features) will not run on poorer hardware, it automatically turns off features to ensure it runs as well as possible given the hardware available.
People mostly don't buy Apple products rationally - they buy on image, brand, design and supposed user friendliness (mostly PR and imagination). A Ford Mondeo will get you from London to Glasgow in exactly the same time and in very similar comfort to a Mercedes, but people still buy Mercedes. Nothing wrong with that.
True, a fool and his money are soon parted.
