I'm sorry, but unless, the ".AsParallel()" method is generically available as an option somewhere else besides a LINQ SQL query, then I find it's usefulness negligible. In a LINQ select query, it would usually exectuate against a backend end which is I/O-bound anyway, not CPU bound. Adding a touch of parallelism here is trying to do the job of what a good Database engine would do for you, and has nothing to do with the performance of the client CPUs. At most, this method could provide a hint to the backend engine to try to optimize the query, but seems to me has little to do with maximizing core usage. (Albeit, a LINQ query may not necessarily always be going to a DB backend, but could be performing the query in memory, in which case the parallel feature could be useful.) Likewise, applying parallel programming may be useful in some cases for speed up, but would find it's best application by a CLR engine and compiler set which self-optimizes the code for maximum parallel effects. I'm not against a new programming paradigm (if you can call concurent programming new), but the application by average programmers is dubious at best. If someone wants to demonstrate superior parallel techniques, then the the language constructs of C# (3.0?) and VB.Net will need to be enhanced to make these features truly native. And, if speed is really the issue, then why would we still be using a CLR-based language, and not a native C++ or other native language to maximize multiple CPU cores? If this is what Microsoft is putting out as an example of good parallel techniques, heaven help us. --ronald