This may indeed be where the performance gap really lies. Performance, in my view, is not merely the CPU power, the memory size or the storage capacity.

These things have long since risen beyond the threshold of sufficient, for most users with typical daily computing tasks.

There are a host of other factors which are in my view more important. Quality of the surrounding hardware is a huge issue. The keyboard, trackpad, battery life, case/shell durability/weight/feel and the display are all areas where better quality really does make a difference.

There is also the issue of the software within the hardware. The keyboard subsystem has one or two processors of its own, the trackpad may have another. Each has software/firmware, quite separate from Windows itself.

And then there are the 'drivers'. Dozens of them, some from Microsoft, some from hardware OEMs or even the chipset makers. A different brew with each different collection of chipsets and hardware devices.

The user experience of the resulting computer is the aggregate of all these pieces. Hence the Apple approach often being applauded for getting most of it right and having generally few issues with subsystems not behaving.

It is entirely possible for a modern Windows computer to get all this stuff right and deliver a solid product. Often enough, nobody in the supply chain is getting paid enough to bother.