I really expected more from this community. I expect Bit-Tech's readers to be a bit more informed and technologically rational than Johnny Lowbrow dragging his knuckles around his local big box store. There are some serious misunderstanding of what Llano is and isn't. You'd think the article would have helped. It isn't a new CPU architecture, it is an evolved CPU architecture. It isn't a competitor to to Intel on CPU intensive tasks (how could it with PhII-based cores?), it is a competitor for CPU+GPU intensive tasks. In fact, it isn't even a competitor to Intel i3/i5 laptops (including battery life), it is a competitor to Intel i3/i5+discrete graphics laptops. AMD looked at the laptop market and saw that there was a lot of laptop users who don't need/want more CPU performance but who do want more GPU performance (the fact that they couldn't compete on the CPU-side in the short term probably helped!). I happen to be one of these users. My 2GHz C2D laptop is fine for CPU tasks. Word processing and spreadsheets open/close/transform just as fast as my quad-core desktop. Program compiling and multimedia encode/transcode is within an acceptable number of seconds that I don't much notice. I do more intensive tasks on my desktop anyway. I do miss the lack of GPU power though. The power of a discrete GPU when I want it, but that also doesn't break battery life when I don't? Yes, please. There is often an assumption among comment authors that what they want is what everyone wants. Just because this subjectively isn't for you, or even for a business environment (although I would dispute this), doesn't mean it is objectively a failure or a poor product. A Llano laptop without an additional discrete GPU would be the best fit if I was in the market for a replacement laptop right now.