If I had the cash and hung out in different places, then, yes, the additional screen real estate would definitely be worth the $500 or so more.

I've usually got about 50 items on my desktop and that changes constantly. I typcailly have 3 or 4 browser windows up and 3 to 15 applications windows up, and am usually doing things where these windows are being used together. And I've usually got some number of folders up as I pull docs, rename them, etc.

Let's say that I'm, as I do, sending a Facebook thred to a friend. So one window for FB, one for the text editor I'm cutting and pasting into, another for my mail client, another for the folder I'm copying the thred txt into to see what naming convention I used for the last thred on that subject.

And I'm doing this all day long.

Oh, yeah, twice the screen real estate in a compact package with well-integrated video hardware would do me no end of good.

Rustin - Your asking quite a bit from measly 1.6GHz AMD Athlon. Stick with your more powerful solution. Remember, at the end of the day, it's still just a "netbook". Internet and light computing use only. The extra screen space is only for eye candy.

Rustin,

Sounds like a regular laptop would be better for you than a netbook.

At the price they want for this thing you would be better off buying two regular netbooks.

I can see someone who wants small size but more screen... the alternative is to simply get a bigger laptop which means a bigger bag, takes up more space, etc. Mind you, someone willing to pay 920 might want something more powerful inside for around the same form factor. *shrug*

I think the two screens are cool but I would not be willing to pay more that $500 for it; IMO.

Great for poker players:)