Well, then you should just have pointed us to the article - which I had already read - and refrained from posting your permanently misjudged personal opinion along with it.
Anand has already cleared most points, but he did not give the article credit where it is due. So I am posting my own viewpoint.
I'll tackle gxsaurav's post pointwise:
1. I disbled the sidebar in Windows Vista, even though I like to use widgets (gadgets), because it takes precious screen real estate. What is the point of having widgets on the desktop? As mail2and correctly mentioned, it takes more time to access a widget on the desktop than in the Dashboard. You just hit F12 (or slide your mouse to the corner of the screen) and it zooms in smoothly (in classy Apple fashion) onto the screen. Just do your stuff, click anywhere onto the screen and it clears away. I wouldn't have it any other way.
That said, having the additional option to drag the widgets onto the desktop won't hurt. But the Windows way is definitely the worst implementation ever.
2. For the second point, well - that article was written in pretty simple english. I don't know why gxsaurav did not understand it. You DO NOT need to open iCal to know the date. Refer to mail2and's third screenshot. I dare say it is again much better than how Windows displays the date because (a) you have to wait with your cursor over the time display; and (b) tool tips have this irritating habit of appearing under the taskbar sometimes.
iCal, the calendaring application in Mac OS X, sports a dynamic icon that reflects the current date on its icon whenever the software is running. It suffers from a tiny flaw though. For some reason best known to Apple, the icon displays the date 'Jul, 17' when the application is not running. This can be slightly misleading on 364 days of the year. But given that Windows XP does not have a calendaring application and the one in Vista does not have a dynamic icon at all, it's hardly something Windows users can complain about.
3. 'F2' renames a file in Windows and the 'Enter' key does so on a Mac. What is the problem with that! Who are you to instruct Apple what their keyboard shortcuts should be? The 'F2' key is used for other purposes.
4. This is a genuine flaw. The Windows' method of re-sizing windows is superior to Mac OS X's. Anand, the full screen and fit-to-content approach does not have anything to do with how the operating system allows you to resize windows. Sometimes it happens that you want the width of a window to stay exactly as it is and just want to re-size the height. You can do it on Windows and not on a Mac.
5. "the most consistent is indeed Linux too date....all apps look the same, same icon & same theme" And this sounds better to you!

What a drab interface that would be! The Genius of Apple's User Interface Themes is that they are all different and easily recognisable. I think having varied interfaces for different applications makes multi-tasking much more efficient. Follow the link for a detailed explanation.
6. You know what, I only realised that the 'Cut' shortcut is disabled in the Finder when I read that article and I have been using a Mac since four months. This just proves that it is essentially a non-required feature. But as was the case with not being able to drag widgets onto the desktop, providing some added functionality as an option wouldn't hurt.
This was the second paragraph of the article:
Even though it's been out for more than 18 months now, Mac OS X 10.4, or Tiger, is a noticeably better operating system than XP or Vista. But it's not perfect. OS X has its own quirks and flaws, little irritants made all the more irritating by the fact that they come out of Cupertino, which should know better. There are some things about the way it works that aren't as flexible, usable or convenient as Windows.
Even before starting the article, the posters have stated a clear disclaimer that they do not intend to compare Mac to Windows and that Tiger is much better than XP or Vista. In fact, they are slightly disappointed by the flaws because "they come out of Cupertino, which should know better" - because anything less than perfect is not good enough by Apple's standards.
I do not know why you are comparing Windows to Mac based on that article when the authors themselves do not intend to.