Ok I think a lot of people are either missing the point, or just not getting the promise that HT offers. I'm hearing a lot of opinions on how for the "average user" it offers little to no benefit, how most users are fine with a <1GHz processor, etc. While some of this is true (especially the hardware demands of most users), there are a lot of practical benefits of hyperthreading. First of all, with two separate units, you should be able to prevent most stalls (such as accessing a bad CD, accessing a floppy disk, lagged web pages) since one pipeline stalls waiting for the data while the other is free to continue to access your hard drive, browse more web pages, etc.
Also, burning a CD at high-speeds while doing other processes should be more reliable. Even with burn-proof, sometimes a web page or whatever lags so bad your computer is frozen until you ctrl-alt-del that program, and sometimes it requires a reboot or just closes all of your open applications instead. This should occur much less frequently (if I understand the technology correctly).
Plus, I hope I'm not the only one here who likes to have a pile of internet explorer pages open (usually 5-15), plus an mp3 program, plus possibly a video program if I'm downloading clips, plus maybe even a DVD player if I'm using tv-out, the ubiquitous virus scanning program, etc. Not to mention, I clear 99% of programs out of my startup items so I boot quickly, with few resources used, whereas most novice users eventually have 10+ programs in their clock tray alone that they forget are running in the background and sometimes cause stalls and lag. Let alone the number of applications Windows XP has running at all times. As you can see, the number of programs we have running is deceptively large! If you stop to consider it, this technology is very promising!
Well, that's what I get out of it, I might be wrong. However, once this becomes affordable (starting it at 3.06 GHz, give me a break!), I'll be quick to adopt!
Edit: misspelled "tray" as if I'm shooting 3-pointers!