There is one thing we can't deny: The HD 3000 is a mediorce graphics chip and the 320M is marginally better. Yet, are people really expecting subnotebooks to pump out an eye-bleeding 60FPS in every game? If graphics and gaming are so important, why not get the 15-inch MacBook Pro instead? It is only logical. Hopefully, Intel or Apple might release some OpenCL drivers for the HD 3000 when it comes out for applications that need it, but... other than that, I can't see why the MacBook Air's target audience (business executives, students, etc.) would be upset over the lack of any GeForce or Radeon graphics in the MacBook Air. The optimal solution would be for Apple to use AMD's Zacate chip (the E-350) with includes an HD 6310 as an integrated graphics solution, but CPU performance would take a serious blow, as the E-350 is only marginally better than an Intel Atom chip at best. So, what do you guys want really? Why the controversy?