This reminds me of the wireless NAS question I asked a while back. But apparently everyone concluded it is very slow, which I understand why, but would love to see resolved.
Yeah, a wireless NAS is going to be quite slow, at least until 802.11N, and then it's still going to be rather slow.
But Time Machine does incremental backups -- it backs up just new or changed files. That kind of usage, once you've got the initial backup made, isn't infeasible over wireless.... Most NASes also plug in via FW or USB, so you could make the initial backup with a wire and then go NAS, I would hope.
B, first, yes, I'm hoping for a 12" or below notebook. A thing I've whined about way too much already.
The issue with Time Machine is basically this: Time Machine requires an entire volume (partition of a hard disk) be available to it for its purposes. It may be possible that one can partition an internal drive in two and use one half for backup. This would help you with file recovery, etc, but not in case the drive fails. But mostly it is intended for use with a second drive. The second drive must be HFS+ (MacOS Extended / Journaled), from what I gather. This is fine for internal drives in a Mac, for USB and FW external drives, and for drives served on a network from another Mac. But since only MacOS can really manage an HFS+ drive, it rules out NASes, which are essentially little Linux servers in a box with a hard drive.
The sort of default way you would use your MBP, from what I understand, is to buy a FW or USB hard drive. You format it as HFS and you give it to Time Machine, and it takes it from there. The alternative for you is that, if you have a Mac on your network that is always on, the drive can be served from there and shared, which means Time Machine can use it without you having to plug it in each time.
Does that make sense?
It does seem like a moving target, though. We'll have to see how it eventually pans out.