Really, Vista was the one and only aberration, that required nice hardware to run. Most prior OSes, and Windows 7, worked great on slower computers right out of the box. XP, FI, ran just fine on <500MHz PII, PIII, and K6 CPUs, IME, and ran OK with as little as 192MB RAM for the first couple years. Windows 7 runs fine on P4 and Athlon XP machines, made 7-8 years prior to it. Take all the OEM crapware off, and Vista is the only MS OS of any note that runs poorly out of the box on slower systems that can run it. MS has really gotten a lot of flak over the years, that has mostly deserved to directed towards the big PC vendors, their software bundling deals, and their own resident support software. Convertible tablets have been around for a long time...they've just been expensive. Fujitsu's Lifebooks were $1800+, FI, just a few years ago. When what they're plugging into doesn't suck, and they can actually handle it. For a notebook replacement, we'd need not only a good CPU, but: 1. A GPU capable of an external output with reasonable performance (Apple, NV, and Qualcomm certainly understand this, Apple is there, and the other two will be shortly, I'm sure). 2. A memory bus of decent width. Right now, Apple is the only major one out there, but I'm sure others will follow. I mean, 32-bit at full speed with LP-DDR3 is still, at best, half of what it's going to take for a few cores and a GPU (Qualcomm has dual-channel, but with slow memory that's only a so-so option). 3. More RAM and/or a standard memory slot. 4. More/better external I/O support. It's all coming, but the totality could still be a few years off, unless Apple makes one. Today, a separate dedicated device still makes much more sense, and I doubt that will change over the next 3-5 years (5-10 years, who knows). The CPU cores are very close, but there are still a few major integration hurdles yet to cross. How good will it be at racing to idle? Intel will laugh all the way to the bank if ARM requires vendors to use their big.little scheme, instead of real low-power active idle states for the fast CPUs. I'll believe their dimension-free graph with lowering power requirements at much higher speeds when I see it (my bet: we won't actually see it, and they're taking advantage of the graph not stating what exactly the 'less energy' line is measuring). The video card is for gaming. The rest? Several virtual machines, compiling stuff, and testing stuff. Ditto on my notebook. And, if I ever have to wait more than a second or two for an input response, process are going to start getting whacked. My question is: what do you want to waste all that network bandwidth and data center power for? "The cloud," may have its uses, but come on! We're getting cell phones with the kind of power we had in nice PCs 8-10 years ago (and remember, people are still buying Atoms), all we need for storage speed is for UHS SD or mSATA to catch on more, and we're starting to get a decent amount of RAM in phone/tablet chips, too. Not, "wow," but it's not like the processors in portable devices are slowing down. They are becoming sufficiently powerful that cloud computing is going to be more useful to the data mining service providers than it will be to the consumer users of those services. Judging from Steam and indie games, while the super-high-production-value games are only rarely gems, I'm not worried. Much like music, the control is shifting away from the big publishers. And, just like music and movies, not being able to afford to make a blockbuster/chart-topper doesn't mean somebody can't make a damn good piece of work. Not yet. I happen to have the luck of having some computers right here with P-M 1.2Ghz CPUs in them (convertible tablets, at that), and the new Atoms are still inferior in responsiveness, no matter what some loopy benchmarks have to say about it, even with more and faster RAM and larger and faster HDDs. That said, I have no doubt that the Atom refresh will be big leap in performance, and would be quite surprised if the new OOO Atoms don't reach at least 1st-gen Core performance.