I can recomment it because the Celeron D 2.9 is a Prescott Celeron D; its well over 2 years newer than that 3200 XP has superior FSB, Core Design and in all simpliness it has far superior benchmarks too. I would have thought we were all old enough to realise; but if we wish to look at any benchmarks even gaming ones Celeron D 2.8 (most don't have 2.9 on) is only 14 Frames down from the XP3200 on Quake III 640, only 20 behind on Quake III 1280, and so on with the Graphics Marks, it goes without saying but its a Budget PC obviously; and not only will he not see the difference in the Frame Rates but he's not going to want games all the time when for the price and power he could get a Console so much easier and better for less.
Sempron is a lost cause against a 2.9; benchmarks to prove otherwise do not exist. If he wants a 2 year old Processor - which he obviously doesn't - he'd be upgrading not rebuilding. He wants a new processor which is better, however much by its certainly faster and newer and has more raw umph than a processor that needs to be killed thoroughly. If there was a Celeron D 3.06 or 3.2 I would say go for one of those, or a low Pentium like a 520.
There is an offer on here
for one only a little over the price of the Celeron 340, and even normally its $50 more. I think in the long run that would be more worth it but I
think, Giancarlo obviously doesn't, that the Celeron D is more than worth it. Especially taking into account that the only other option they've given you is to keep your 3200, which pushes back motherboard and ram upgrades which would also be useful. Maybe eventually they'll try and help you instead of bringing up their own agenda, you might even be lucky and they'll bring up an alternative that makes sense...