I've explained this in so many posts that I'm beginning to hope whichever Apple-addled party taking umbrage at one of my posts would stumble on those as well.
There's this thing called OSX. I own software which runs on this thing called OSX. And unlike most consumers who don't believe in paying for software, I actually pay for stuff and have bespoke development projects in place, which means that my investment in software rivals/exceeds investment in hardware.
And there's this range of very pretty yet badly engineered and defect-laden machines (especially those bearing the laughable 'Pro' moniker) manufactured by the same company which OSX exclusively runs on.
Well - that's not entirely true as you and I know. It runs on other machines but it becomes a toss-up between somewhat unreliable and considerably hassle-laden software operation on a reliable hardware platform, or somewhat less unreliable, no-hassle software operation on an unreliable hardware platform. In the light of this situation, I find myself choosing hardware which is supported under OSX - the lesser of two evils if you will.
Can't understand why people take umbrage at your posts? Could it be because you manage to pepper them with insulting phrases ("Apple-addled party," "most consumers who don't believe in paying for software," and "another sheep abandoning a ship that's recently just as good as the one they're jumping to because other people (who themselves don't know what they're talking about) says so") to give just three examples.
Not that you're likely to take this advice, but perhaps if you just answered the question or simply presented your opinions without being condescending, people wouldn't be so put off.
To get back to the original question, though: I think that we have to differentiate between version 1.5, which will probably sport internal improvements such as a cooler CPU or a larger SSD, and version 2.0, which might incorporate changes that require more of a redesign. I'm hoping that we at least see MBA 1.5 before MW Expo 2009.