I've been in the CPU design business for about 10 years-- and I think a low-power CPU at the expense of some performance is totally appropriate. If you need a "portable workstation", there are high performing laptop models available; however, the vast majority of computer use is simply not that CPU intensive.

Savvy laptop users who care about battery life (which ultimately affects portability and usability) should pick slower CPUs that offer somewhat less performance along with low power.

Vista?

There's no excuse for an OS taking up a majority of CPU cycles.

I agree. In my opinion, an OS should be background. Only provides as an interface for the applications and the hadware, the kernel and MAYBE a basic UI (Think Win95 here).

I hear Win7 is better, but that might be MS Hype...

I think that the 1.2's might not be that bad, as I dont often use up most of my available processors...the worst I need is for gaming with chat programs, web browser, media player, and programming environment in background. How much do you think I'd need for that on dual/single cores? Ive never really thought about it, cause it hasnt been an issue.

I believe that the key issues is really RAM speed/size and HD speed in the modern environment...then again, I run Vista on only a gig of ram. *eek

I think what we are seeing is a levelling off of processor speeds in the consumer market, but it still feels wierd *upgrading* to a slower machine.

It's not annoying to me, but see X300 Blue Light Special