The hate with the Pentium 4 began not only with the low IPC and consumption. You have to include the strict need of Rimm AND ATX 2.03 (wich means new power supply). On top of that the socket 423 was a dead end and the FPU performs below a pentium 3 if you dont use SSE2.
The amount of money you needed for such machine was astronomical compared with a Athlon XP (refering to a platform with future upgrades). In the first year it was very hard to justify such investment as you could buy a matching AMD system for less than half the price!.
Heck! i paid 130u$s for an Athlon XP 1800+ Palomino in April 2002 here in Argentina (king of the hill in october 2001) and paired with 256 DDR 266Mhz and MSI SIS 745 Ultra (i used to joke about one of my friends who bought a Pentium 4 1.3Ghz, 128MB - 64x2 - Rimm and a Intel 850GB 1 month earlier for twice the price!)
considering all this it carried a bad reputation for about 2 years until parts like Northwood's 533Mhz w/HT began to outperform the Athlon XP. When things were getting better the Athlon 64 made the debut and rushed Intel to finish the Prescott, wich was a BIG piece of shit...
need more reasons to hate netburst? the difference on performance you see nowadays between Athlon XP and Pentium 4 its because everyone uses SSE2, but back in the day there was no much difference between a u$s200 AMD and a u$s400-500 Intel. You have to see it from that point of view, today doenst really matter who's the best (talking about proccesors of 10 years ago)
PS: oh yeah! the retention system on the 478 and 775! the first breaks with the pressure, the 2nd was a nightmare at least the first 5 or 10 times. dont get me started!