+1,000,000 (all instantiated into the same reused block, of course)
Garbage collection is pure, distilled and concentrated evil for interactive or real-time systems. The best it can offer you is a statistical value for event latency, but with such a wide deviation that you need to run the software on a grossly overspecified platform in order to make sure that even if your event occurs during a GC run, you'll still get to handle it in time.
And I still haven't come across a good argument for why you'd need GC, let alone one that would make me give up "Resource Acquisition Is Initialisation". Most arguments for GC grossly overestimate the amount of direct dynamic allocation a typical C++ application programmer does, and never fully take into account the deferred cost of cleaning up later.
Fifteen years later, you can *still* tell that an application was written in Java. It's got that "sticky" feeling, like a watching a machine with a slipping gear, as that wonderful GC jumps in at the most inopportune moments. It's fine for quickly building client/server applications that can hide behind network latency, but you'd need your head examined to write something like a real-time embedded operating system in Ja--- oh, never mind...
On C++11 itself, while the memory model work is great, very few will notice it, and while that does sum up most of the new features, there are some standouts: As someone who had to teach C++ many years ago, I welcome the new meaning of the "auto" keyword with open arms: it sure beats typing "std::map<std::string, std::map<std::string,std::vector<std::string> > >::const_iterator" . On that note, the official recognition of what the two characters ">>" together should mean when found inside a template declaration is a small, but also very welcome, addition.
Other high-points for efficiency are the introduction of move construction and rvalue references, both of which remove the spurious extra objects that can occur when passing by value. Sure, they're mostly of interest to library authors, but they've been added in a way that often won't require rewrite of client code.
Before complaining, I'd suggest a read of the FAQ (http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html) might be in order. Of course, if you're already convinced that Java or C are the world's best languages, there's not a lot that would convince one otherwise.