As for the idea that systems with Intel graphics are good for only a few things, I think that depends on what your idea of what doing things with a computer is.

A computer with Intel graphics will do fine with office software, web surfing, ebook reading, audio editing & playback, AV recording, transcoding, remote access (either end), photo editing, development tools and compilation, and many other common tasks. They're capable of acting as file servers, web servers, database servers, virtualization servers, application servers, domain servers, and streaming media servers.

They can play back video to various degrees and play games of certain varieties as well.

Now if what you want most out of a computer is he highest quality 1080p playback and 3D gaming, then no, Intel graphics aren't what you're looking for. But I would hardly describe all of these other areas as “only a few things.”

Beyind that, it's true — a CULV-based system isn't the optimal choice for many of the things I mentioned. But the gating factor for most of those is the fact that you're getting a CULV chip instead of an expensive ULV Core 2 Duo, not the fact that it has Intel graphics. Netbooks use pretty nearly the slowest x86 CPUs you can buy. CULVs are appreciably faster. If you need something faster, there are many steps up from there, even in the ULV range, until you get to chips like the 1.86 GHz ULV Core 2 Duo. And at any point in the range, you might stop and say “well, that's fast enough for me” — even if you never spend a dime upgrading your graphics.

Different strokes for different folks.

Netbooks are useful because they are inexpensive. CULV notebooks aren't going to sell that well because they cost more and you don't really get anymore than you got with a netbook.

Technology has evolved past the point where you can afford to have poor graphics capabilities. They don't have to be battery draining 3D monsters, but they don't need to be pathetic with pathetic drivers, either.

Intel needs to get with the program and provide real solutions or they need to get out of the business of shoveling substandard chipsets with substandard drivers and claiming they are graphics capable.

I think netbooks will stay more in the 10″ form factor allowed by Intel and Microsoft for the best deals, with more systems hitting the sub-$300 price point.

Meanwhile 11″ systems will primarily ship with CULV chips that are up to the task of powering the larger screens and will ship at $399 and up. They'll still generally be thin and light and have terrific battery life, but they won't really be netbooks anymore. I think there will be huge mainstream volume in these.

Also, I think 13″ will take a big chunk of sales away from 15″ systems, possibly even becoming the largest-selling size. 13″ is the compromise size for people who want relatively portable but not *too* small, just as 15″ is the compromise size for people who want a nice big screen, but don't want to carry around a 17″ or 19″ laptop.