Thanks everyone for your help. I'm sorry for the confusion if it's not a Pentium 4. The display at Best Buy said that it was, and I was honestly surprised that the Pentium 4 was still around, but figured it must have been a revision or something.
But I really appreciate the correct information, that will help me out a lot.
It is basically the same as the Toshiba model I bought last week for $230 -- C55-A5300. See: http://cpuboss.com/c...l-Celeron-1037U
Win8 will run perfectly fine on it. The biggest issue with that laptop and most laptops is that they come with a 5600rpm drive. Those are pretty much crap. Toshiba did have some sort of disk caching to memory thing built in on the vanilla copy of Windows that came on the laptop to help with that though. I never tested it out because I dropped an SSD in the day I got it. It has been fantastic ever sense.
To be perfectly fair, Windows 8 runs great even on really old Core 2 laptops if you put an SSD in them. Your bottleneck is rarely the CPU or memory, it it is almost always disk access times under normal workloads. It is worth noting that browsers do cache a crapton of things to disks so you'll bottleneck with web browsing also.
I'm a firm believer that buying high-end cores tends to be an exercise in futility these days. Subjectively speaking, my horribly under-powered Celeron runs as a good as my desktop i7 2600k which is in the top 10 of the common desktop CPUS (excluding Xeons and such). And that is really the most important thing to consider -- if you can't tell the difference than you are better spent spending your money elsewhere and are not really doing CPU intensive workloads in the first place. I work in high performance computing which is about pushing the last ounce of performance out of a machine. I've worked with all types of architectures with cores ranging in the thousands, and I can tell you, it is not trivial to utilize your cores effectively even on n<16 core machines. In 99% of workloads you are bottle-necked on memory or disk accesses because those are slow pipes and you have a limited amount of bandwidth. In most cases cpu(s) tend to not be the bottleneck for performance (sure there are some cases like transcoding but these aren't really all that common).
Another way to look at it is like this -- throwing 4 cores at a situation that isn't effectively utilizing 2 cores isn't going to improve performance if all of the cores are idling waiting on data in memory or on disk. Moreover, throwing high clock speeds at a situation where you are waiting on data from memory means that you simply spending more time idling and gain little performance benefits.
And this I absolutely agree with. My current laptop has an i7 and it's quite good, but it came with a 5400 RPM hard drive and I have not yet had the opportunity to replace it (It's on the list). That is most definitely where my slow down occurs.
However when I was looking at laptops, I had a hard time finding a faster hard drive. Everything had a 5400 in it. I thought that odd, because I remembered a number of years ago when I got my Vista machine that pretty much everything I looked at had a 7200 in it... So, that I found rather frustrating, and I don't know why that would be...
But thanks everyone for all of your help, I really appreciate it.