I only say that because I don't have cable :( lol I'm sure I'd like that feature.

Well, I never questioned who Richard or someone on Gaf.  It was never a he said or she said.  Richard said he saw Sony documents.  It was not someone telling him about the document.  This is totally different and so far no one has disputed that document or what it says.

Actually I did. I addressed your incorrect assumption that (to paraphrase): "due to Microsoft's experience and expertise you think they will be able to create a smaller and more efficient OS than Sony"

There is NOTHING in Microsoft's 30+ year history as a software company that would suggest they have the expertise to create a small and efficient OS. It's just not in their DNA. Microsoft is big on cramming a lot of shiny new bells and whistles into their OS platforms with little regard to efficiency, security, memory conservation, or performance.

Provided to him by who? Who else has seen this document? How old is the document? Why is there a dev who is making a PS4 game calling the report "absolutely false"? Why are there people who have proven extremely reliable backing each other up saying that the information is wrong? Why has the story been changed twice now if he had such a reliable document right in front of him?

Yes, actually they do.  Windows CE/Pocket PC was a small efficient OS.  The Xbox and Xbox 360 OSes were both small and extremely efficient, both based on Windows NT.  The Xbox 360's OS ran in 32MB of memory, over 18MB - 60MB less than the PS3's memory footprint depending on the time frame.

So, you're full of bullshit if you don't think Microsoft knows how to create a small, efficient OS.  Not only are you full of it, what you say is absolutely contrary to fact.  The reason why Windows is "bloated" compared to Linux is the fact that the OS has to support a myrid of hardware, all without recompiling the kernel, as you have to do with Linux.  Likewise, Windows has a myrid of features that it support for software that may be old and outdated, but still used by corporations across the country. 

One company I worked with had software that it originally used with Windows 3.1 and only updated it when they finally upgraded to Windows XP company wide.  That was years into the lifespan of Windows XP when Windows Vista was near release. 

I've explained Windows Vista time and again.  It wasn't bloated.  It was no bigger or smaller than Windows 7.  Windows Vista allocated all of the memory to the OS and delegated it out as applications needed it.  The same thing happens on SQL Servers.  The relevance to this is the fact that originally Windows Vista was intended to have a SQL-based file system.  That was finally abandoned after Windows Vista SP2 came out.  Because Windows 7 wasn't going to use it, you never saw memory allocated that way.  The initial issues with Windows Vista weren't due to Windows, they were due to hardware OEMs and the drivers they issue.  This is well documented and it's well known that NVidia was the biggest culprit.  

Not going to try to defend Windows Me.  It was half-baked.  

Linux variants have the benefit that they're compiled for the installation.  This means you don't have to have the support of every kind of hardware device built in, nor do you have to build features around it immediately for the release of the kernel.  This makes the OS extremely small, likewise efficient.  But those Linux builds running a UI and designed to work with a multitude of hardware without recompiling the kernel aren't small and efficient, and they don't have the same level of application support.