<< What about the $30 upgrade for a P3-1Ghz? Is that worth it? >>
My opinion is yes. While the performance difference will be minimal (a rough estimate is 5% or less), the way I see things, a notebook is an investment and you want to buy as much performance as you can at a reasonable cost, since upgrades (besides RAM) are not cost-effective.
In other words, 1.0 GHz CPU seems to be the sweet-spot in pricing for this notebook (faster speeds cost too much more).
Also, Intel Speedstep processors are actually kinda peculiar. If I'm not mistaken, 1.0 GHz is the peak clock speed, which is only applicable when plugged in w/ the AC adapter. When operating on battery power, Speedstep processors function at a much slower clock rate to extend battery life.
Furthermore, in batttery operation, many Intel Speedstep CPUs that are rated for different speeds actually run at the same clock. For the 1.0 GHz and slower CPUs, it's something like 600 MHz.
What this means is that if you bought a 933 MHz CPU and a 1.0 GHz Speedstep CPU, they would run at the same clock when battery powered.
This suggests that paying extra for a Speedstep processor can be a silly waste (unless you're always using AC power). However, for only $30 extra, get all the speed you can now.
To be clear, I don't recall exactly if the 866 MHz and the 1.0 GHz Speedstep CPUs operate at the same clock speed on battery power. Intel "sorts" their Speedstep CPUs into various families. You can find specific info by searching Google, I'm sure.