Both. No, really.

Scientists in California have found a way to increase the length of time between recharges 10-fold, so a 2-hour time-frame can now be 20.

So, really, I mean both.

Woadan

CPU.

Without comprimising current performance & battery life, would like to see higher performance with ability to throttle down for longer battery life plus stay cooler.

The PC makers need to do their part also with 2-4gb RAM options, better graphics with dedicated cache, & hopefully we’ll see an affordable SSD over 60gb once the 120 comes out mainsteam.

Who else here would enjoy a TC1100 with a 1.2 core duo, a gig of ram, a double capacity battery, and a keyboard that fits over both the back and the screen? That make anyone else lightheaded?

CPU – CPU – CPU enough said. And while we’re draining the battery faster with a full C2D, throw me in some dedicated graphics too!!!

I’ll take battery life over CPU speed.

I’d like a more powerful processor that can be throttled down when the computer is running on batteries to give me better battery life. I’d like my power settings to be able to control this so as to give me the best results when plugged in (speed) and when mobile (battery life).

I have an X61t and it is powerful enough to meet most of my needs. For anything that requires more power I use a 2.4GHz desktop system. Portability was my main factor for purchasing the X61t and portability means the ability not to be tied to a power plug. Currently I get 4 hours plus on the 8 cell battery but I look forward to the day when a better battery or a fuel cell will let me run in “high performance” all day long without adding extra weight or bulk. Then I’ll think about trading off that battery life for additional performance. In the meantime I’ll keep praying for better VISTA code from Microsoft and better drivers from Lenovo.

BOTH! Just kidding, but not really

Well, since I am usually near a power outlet in my typical mobile computing scenarios, or chained to a desktop most of the day, I choose CPU power. However, it would be great to be able to switch between the two easily and reliably to cater to your needs at that moment.

I’m plugged in most of the time now, so I opted for CPU over battery for my second tablet. However, with Intel’s SpeedStep technology and Toshiba’s Power Save utility, I can throttle down the processor when needed and squeeze out a bit more battery life. (My 14″ widescreen and 7200rpm hard drive still guzzle a lot of juice though.) Going forward, I think I’ll stick with this setup of a fast processor that can slow down when necessary.

It’s rarely the CPU these days. I mean, sure, it matters for a handful of apps, but many of those aren’t really in the typical use cases for laptop/tablet users. We don’t all NEED to play the fanciest 3D games on the go, for example.

What most people do underestimate, however, is how much data they’re shuttling around with *minimal* CPU intervention. That eats up RAM, and requires prodigious amounts of I/O on the disk. Since 1.8″ disks are so very, very slow, that’s the big killer.

I need *performance* from my portable systems, so that I get the most out of those 2 to 5 hours. In my case, that means that I’m going to tax my RAM and disk, so sure, give me a lower-spec Core 2 Duo, just don’t cheap out on the RAM or the SSD. I need so much data available at a glance that I’m best off with at least 2GB of RAM on XP as it stands. For Vista, I’d probably have to go with the 64-bit version and crack that 4GB ceiling wide open.

I prefer to have the more powerful system. Yeah, it’s true I don’t often NEED it, but it’s a lot easier to bring along an extra battery than it is to toss a spare cpu in my bag for those times when a faster system is essential. The guy sitting next to me may always get 5+ hours of battery life, but he’s stuck there. With a good set of power management plans I can get 5+ hours too or 1.5 hours and run applications that would kill the other system. With mobile processors being so scalable in regards to power consumption, price is the only limiting factor to how fast my tablets are going to be.

Most of the time I’m good with and prefer lighter weight. I have used my Samsung Q1 with a Pentium and two gigs as my main computer for over a year now. But mobile users have to learn all the ways to minimize power with lower than readable screen lighting, leaping into and out of standby mid-sentence, and taking a minute going into and out of hibernate, timing it walking in and out of meetings (or classes). But I also keep three spare batteries with me, and a wedge when I lug my M400 around. when I take both computers on the road, that’s a lot of battery and power transformer weight, and the M400 spends most of the time back at the hotel.

I decked out my M400 with a pretty fair 2 Mhz core duo and a 7200 rpm disk drive, but I think I get more performance with two gigs of RAM which seems to let me have more programs and data open than the speed of the processor. Both TPC and UMPC have two gigs and the performance difference depends on which way the wind is blowing.

But, oh, to not have to plug in until the end of the day! If you’re getting four or five hours because of your core 2 duo, I bought my M400 too soon (again)!

I’m with you James. I’m highly mobile as well. 95% of the time there are 3 applications open on my desktop. Outlook, Explorer, and Mindmanager. I don’t need a screamer cpu but I am sick of being hooked on the outlet. My whole strategy for airports, meetings, etc. is where is the nearest outlet. Today I have a fast M400 that I will sell and replace with a slower TPC that will give me extended battery life. I was going to purchase the 2710p and still may but I’m waiting for this mystery HP tablet to come out first.

Personally speaking, the work I do requires a bit more CPU than just email and web surfing, but since battery life is still important, I have concluded that an even 2.0GHz processor offers a nice balance of the two needs.