Why NOT have it? If it’s a nice benefit on occasion, why not? Divvy out your problems between ones that can be attacked in a massively parallel way, those that can use GPU, those that just need brute CPU strength, and deal with them accordingly.

It sounds like extrapolation from one data point to say “i don’t need it, so why does everyone else?” which is the basic vibe from point 1. Why would you need a fast laptop? You don’t seem to. But many people want one. Wouldn’t you want an Ion, or Ion 2 in your netbook? Or maybe an SSD would speed it up?

There’s a fundamental difference between individual user’s needs, and their desires, their wants. The majority of netbook users would i’d argue want a faster netbook. They’re sucky slow. Concurrency might be in parts hard, but sometimes it’s pretty easy, and getting easier.

Concurrency, having the CPU GPU memory HD, SSD firepower is relevant when the problem can be tackled this way. And when it is, it’s hugely important, as the gains are manyfold. It’s not the general be all and end all, but if a user could have a more powerful computer, wouldn’t they take it? has there really been many cases of “excessive” or too much computational power?

Would many people go back to single core? Or integrated over discrete graphics power? The need/desire of a user for more computational power isn’t a fixed value, and i’d imagine it’s going up , with day to day variations, all the time.