I like M1911s, personally; but it's definitely an old design. However, it has lasted this long for a reason.
Smokin, just curious, but what do you base Kimber being complete $hit on? I know a couple of people that have Kimber .45s, one of them has had the same one for 12 years and has had nary a problem; not that that's any sort of guarantee of quality, of course. They certainly have a great feel as well though, in my opinion.
It's lasted this long because gun designers are not the most gifted mechanical engineers and they would rather profit from an age old design which is still in demand (largely due to image and aesthetics, rather than engineering), instead of designing something cutting edge.
On to my specific reasoning for hating Kimber products. For starters, they are a brand which depends on name recognition and marketing, rather than the quality of their products. They make "pretty" guns, favoring aesthetics over functionality -- guns that shoot straight on the range, but can't be relied upon in a duty carry situation. Kimber manufactures their firearms to very tight tolerances, so tight that it requires 1500-2000 rounds to be shot through it before the gun loosens up sufficiently. Given that the cost of 50 rounds of .45 ACP is about $40, most owners are not going to shoot $1500 worth of ammo to break in their guns. My biggest beef with these firearms, other than being built on the archaic M1911 platform, is reliability. An M1911 manufactured on tight tolerances will shoot straight, but is simply not reliable. If there is zero play between the slide and frame, the gun is going to endure a feed failure at some point, but hey, at least you'll look like the real deal right before you die. Kimber is also notorious for having poor quality control procedures, noted by a lack of consistency in their products. One gun will shoot fine right out of the box, another will require 500 rounds of break-in and a couple trips back to the factory for "adjustment". To me, this is not acceptable in a >$1000 firearm.
The "feel" you speak of are the natural ergonomics of the M1911, which are quite nice, I will admit. These are the same for pretty much every 1911 out there, though, and are certainly not exclusive to Kimber. The magazines are typically (with a few exceptions) single-stacked, providing for a paltry capacity of 7 rounds, 6 rounds for the officer models (3" barrel, compact 1911). This of course begs the question "why the hell did I not buy a goddamned revolver?", when there really is no good answer to it. A small .357/.38+P revolver is better in nearly every conceivable fashion, particularly reliability, but also in terms of power delivery and size. Given that you can't reliably feed hollowpoint ammunition in an M1911 (not that there is enough velocity to expand it anyway), a .357 magnum is comparatively better in every way. It's my opinion that the person who purchases a Kimber 1911 for concealed carry purposes does so for image, more so than anything else. Perhaps this, more than anything else, is what sours my opinion of Kimber products.
One last knock on Kimber products is the egregious use of metal injection molding (MIM) parts. For a $1000+ firearm marketed towards competition shooters and concealed carry holders, there should be no MIM parts on it anywhere. Reliability is paramount, and parts made with MIM processes tend to be rather easily broken. It's not uncommon for Kimber owners to strip off all the MIM parts, replacing them with high quality substitutes from Wilson Combat or another 1911 boutique like Ed Brown.
In essence, a small framed .357 revolver can do better, everything an M1911 does, with none of the drawbacks. For any reason other than looking cool, why would an otherwise informed individual buy a Kimber M1911? They are popular for no reason other than superior marketing.