I think that the question is more about business side of thing than on specs at this point on one hand and reserved resources (for OS, services, etc.) on the other (more technical pov).
On the specs, I see nothing really wrong with MSFT system.
On the CPU side we have either parity or lightly better for MSFT.
On the GPU side Sony win by a significant margin.
To elaborate, MSFT CPU should benefit from lower latency provided by the DDR3 but it might not be that significant as in any case top of the line games will minimize as much as possible L2 misses. Devs dealt with the Cell which prove that for a lot of things done in a games it is possible to prefetch the data properly in a lot of cases.
There could be the double FMA units, but I don't expect a x2 jump in overall CPU perfs, though it could be a significant win.
So as I see it Durango (putting OS consideration aside) may do better on the CPU front (slightly because of DDR3 or more significantly if they have reworked the SIMD) and is set to render at a lower resolution than the PS3 and quiet possible with lesser level of AA.
I think that if some noise about Durango CPU are true it could definitely provide either a smoother gameplay (when the CPU is the bottleneck) or buy a bit more time to the GPU to finish its frame.
The cons is pretty obvious, it has to render at lower resolution with less AA.
Overall Sony has a really flexible system, most likely the easiest to code for ever.
MSFT made some choices that may not please enthusiasts but I think that a lot come down to price and business side of things. To me it is like a coin it has to side: on one side the specs there is no disputing how important that is, on the other "the rest" and that quiet a lot of thing but it is mostly business related (price, perceived value, functionality /to which extend the system is functional without subscription, etc.). It is not the place to discuss that.
Back to the tech, Durango having its weakness and possibly (as it is not confirmed) some mild advantage in some places, I think the problem and on the contrary on most people here that the issue is more CPU related than GPU. It should be trivial to scale the graphics workloads to match Durango GPU throughput. How many CPU cores MSFT really lock for OS and services and what the competition does? That should be imo the concern.
RAM should be pretty even both system having a massive amount of ram a first in console history, I think scaling down the requirement ion this regard if needed should not be tough.
What could be tougher is if MSFT gave guaranties wrt to the amount of CPU power available to the system (OS, service, may be even apps), release the system and then has to make change because of performances issues.
Imo if MSFT hearsabout what Sony does on the matter (and they use less resources) they should tone down they own requirement before it get more complicated to change it (/software makes use of it).
As for changing the hardware in emergency, it sounds like a joke. Sony didn't debunk the rumors about a possible 2014 EU launch, I don't know where MSFT stands wrt timeline, etc. but rushing something is not doable without being late, like giving SOny a free year.
They better stick to their plan, (depending on the truth in rumors) tone down a tad their OS requirement, if anything the thing they can alter is price, in this sucky economy it may help more than a few FLOPS.
