Re: But if single-core performance is fine, why bother with dual-core? Unless there won't be any single-core machines. Part of my problem with the push to dual-core is that the vast majority of users don't need it. Why not just wait until 64-bits is out the door?
You're contradicting yourself left and right here. Of course, people need performance, but not for Word or Excel. These may be the widest used apps, but it's becoming just as popular for people to rip CDs, encode videos, and render 3d images.
You seem to be arguing that Word and Excel won't see the benefit of dual core, but nobody cares. You also say that without 64-bits, you can't stitch together 50k x 50k pixel images, but again, no one cares. Like I said, 8MP cameras are high end, they support poster sized images, and consumers don't typically print larger than portrait sized photos of their pictures.
What consumers do care about is audio and video, like I've said. These also happen to be the areas that receive the largest benefit from dual core. Anandtech's benchmarks show performance improvements in the range of 60-80%, and 64-bit doesn't even play here yet (and has yet to prove similar performance results).
To get the best new experience from your PC and mobile PC, you would want to go for dual core, and that means Athlon X2, Pentium D, or Core Duo. Single core CPUs are obsolete, far more so than 32-bit CPUs. 32-bit CPUs may start looking gauche once Vista comes out, but by then, Merom will be Intel's mainstream laptop CPU and the point is moot.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
