Typing this on an 1810TZ and I agree. 3GB of RAM, reasonable processor, 1366x768 native resolution, 6-8 hours battery life depending on usage. Cost me £330, although I've swapped out the HD for an 80GB Intel X25M SSD which cost an extra £130 or so.
I use this as my primary machine, plugged into a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and a USB keyboard/mouse on my desk. It's easily fast enough for what I need.
Who benefits from IE9 being available for other platforms?
Not users. What would the ability to run IE9 add to the Linux or Mac desktop? Another web browser? Do we really need one?
Not Microsoft, who would have to invest massive amounts of effort into porting it, and large parts of the Windows codebase too.
Honestly, I wonder if the author of this article was deliberately trying to think of something to criticise about IE9, and this was the best he could do.
For non-web developers who use non-Windows operating systems, IE9 is an irrelevance.
For web developers who use any operating system, IE9 has to be a good thing, because it means more browsers out there that are closer to the standards.
Great, except for when your users DNS resolvers cache the DNS entry longer than they're supposed to (many resolvers ignore TTL), and are unable to reach your site.
Hamilton in Spa 2008 and Alonso in Monza 2006 are examples which come to mind.