Yes.
For a starting mage using annual advancement, sure. However it is my experience that actual development and learning can far outpace the guidelines for character creation. Consider studying from vis- about 8-9 xp per season on average, which is 32 to 36 experience per year. Given this is likely the low end of he rate of learning, it seems evident that actual learning will far outpace the generic example.
Certainly. The guideline is there, in my opinion, to set some baseline, especially for NPCs. PCs can reach above it, and even NPCs if the storyguide wants them to. It's nevertheless the benchmark set by the core rules for the maximum Art score in the Order.
I have had some difficulty separating you from your character, it is true.
Indeed, it does make for a good story. I try and compartmentalize for all of my characters, to make sure characters act authentically based on the information they can reasonably know. Having some OoH Lore and Code of Hermes goes a long way for characters knowing some basics. Presumably all characters at least remember the Oath they took at gauntlet and recognize that interfering with mundanes is a big deal, and predict that their actions are interfering with mundanes. I can't imagine in a million years having a character think turning a magus over to mundane authorities is a good idea. It's only possibly less bad, or does the Heinleinian thing and you solve one problem to create an opportunity to keep going to solve another problem. But I actually do care that characters have too much meta knowledge, and I'll ask the troupe if my characters can reasonably know something being discussed in other places, letting them decide what my character knows and then acting based on that. Sometimes it ties my hands, as in the case of my weather maga being held back from flinging lightning bolts on a faerie.
Why do you perceive it as limiting fun? Are you presuming that I don't have fun in the games I play in? Sound like it. The RAW here and in plenty of other places is ambiguous, at best, and different troupes will see things differently. Can we agree upon that? It's not elitism, I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I am saying that you're doing it in a way I wouldn't, and the assumptions you've built into things are assumptions I don't share. When you're telling your story it's coming from a very different place than I would be coming from with any of my characters, and I enjoy making the character who can slag just as well as the next guy. I also am starting to be fond of my generalist who is useless in combat. Useless in combat and Overconfident is a heck of a lot of fun, and he gets owned quite easily. I've played the Overconfident magus. I am playing a overconfident apprentice, and I have to be mindful that I have to play the character in a way that is fun for everyone at the table. There are many opportunities that I see as a player that I purposely make my character avoid because doing it would be being a dick. There's a fine line between doing things because they are authentic to the character's motivations and things that will be fun for everyone at the table. If I maligned D&D, it's because the style of D&D I see around where I live is kill monsters, collect experience, dungeon crawl. If that makes me a jerk, it makes me a jerk.
Where does it say you can create 100 independently targetable creo spells in raw and place them wherever desired within Voice Range? One way of reading raw is you create 100 fireballs and they target one person, as someone else previously said in the thread. One can read it multiple ways, and however Creo spells work differently, it should be applied consistently. So either, you're creating a T:Ind, Size +3 or a T:Group, Size +1. Pick one and go with it. Figure out how it works for your saga and recognize that other sagas and people don't see it the same way. The same goes for Penetration and Wards, penetration for the Aegis, spell mastery with respect to removing botch dice for rituals. These are areas that have seen a lot of discussion on these boards. I've been consistent in saying that you and I share different assumptions, and yet you continue to come back and say I'm wrong. 
I've seen several people post on these boards who complain about magi being too powerful in Ars. Well, my first comment is that it is Ars Magica, and my second comment is that there are a number of choices in interpreting RAW where it is ambiguous that can significantly nerf power. My interpretation regarding Creo and (small t) targeting groups, for example. It may be that your troupe's next Ars saga tunes the power down. Xavi has posted here on some changes they've made to tone down power. Even YR7 has posted significant tweaks to reduce power. It is a recurrent theme on the boards, but I think RAW read conservatively will tweak power. Certainly a spell which is capable of killing 100 people at a time borders close to hitting the Central Rule, and troupe/sg fiat could just declare it a ritual...
One last thing. Link is fine, but I'm not Links.
One other thing, is I'll be more mindful that you are speaking as your character from now on. Are we cool?
herp
tl;dr
Stopped at the f-bomb, seriously not cool, man.
No, but my 8 year old daughter was right next to me and saw it at about the same time I did. Although it served as a good object lesson for me, so I guess I should thank you.
But, you've now fallen to the point where you have to drop to ad hominem attacks and telling me what I'm thinking, so I think we're done here.
derp
Q.E.D.
I was being mean and grumpy. Sorry. JLinks was giving me wisdom, and I let it escalate to me being a total dick. I've got some stuff going on here irl that has put me in a foul mood, and no one deserves to have me take it out on them.
Yeah...Paabo I don't see you lasting long here. I didn't mind the story even any discrepancies that may or may not exist, in fact I found it decently written and entertaining. But you've gone too far here, this is a civilized board and you leapt the tracks on that awhile ago.
I've seen Jonathan.Link have numerous debates and arguments on the board over rules and themes with the game, and even the ones that get a bit intense stay civil. That didn't happen here, and I didn't see that with JL's responses. Regardless of your feelings on some of the points made, you took it personally and responded very personally to a poster that's been here for years and is well regarded. You should apologize and try to be more civil. You don't have to agree with JL or me or anyone else, but there's ways to do that and still be a member here.
Again, I don't see you lasting long here and still keeping this attitude and language.
You know, I didn't see this meltdown coming.
Paabo - you can play however you want and there is no wrong way to have fun. You can play other systems too; I, for one, enjoy D&D very much (except 4e). What you can't do is personally insult other users of the board or disrespect them.
I enjoyed your fiction, and thank you for sharing it. I agree with much of your rulings. I disagree with how you see the Code and acceptable social behavior in the Order, but if it works for your group great. It's a shame you let an argument devolve into personal insults and bickering, which is simply unacceptable.
Yair