You don't even need backups for your SSD, because of course you don't actually store any data there – you just install programs on it.

I have a Linksys-by-Cisco WRT320N (about $80 it seems), and it does fine. It's supremely fast and stable even with 300+ connections, although to be fair I only tested it up to 22 Mbit/s, because that's the limit of my connection. I'm using the default firmware, which is good enough for my purposes. It does have weird issues with uPnP though, randomly dropping your speed to a pathetic 500 kB/s until you reboot it. Disabling UPnP works like a charm though, and it's a pointless feature anyway. So yeah, maybe not worth recommending over that Buffalo, but it seems like a nice alternative for a similar price.

Chrome was my favorite browser from the moment it came out. Sure, it used an outdated rendering engine (Webkit 3 I think), and sure, it had no support for extensions and whatever. It did have great performance though. But most importantly, it had by far the best user interface of any browser. Dragging tabs to other windows is absolutely brilliant, and not indicating the operation with obscure arrows, but directly, makes it complete. No other browser I've seen can claim this. And now, Chrome does support all the ultra popular features I never use anyway.

I agree that 64 GB is too little. On my one machine I currently use 72 GiB on my Windows partition (that's not including user folders, those are on another partition). On my other pc I use 76. That's on HDDs of course, and both partitions are 100 GB because HDD space is cheap. But this usage doesn't really grow, since it's just Windows 7 and installed programs, and by now I've installed everything I need to (and more). I'd guess about half of it is installed games anyway. But 80 GB should certainly be enough. That's about € 180 here, way less expensive than a 128 GB drive. (For computer hardware, basically € = $.) Even if I do get close to the 80 GB limit currently, I can easily uninstall some games that I don't really play at the moment, to get well below it. For anything other than applications, i.e. mass storage, you should just use a HDD anyway. So I do not think 128 GB is a practical minimum, in fact I don't see how you would need it at all. And it's definitely strange to completely ignore the existence of 80 GB SSDs. Why did you do so?