It's not really about the info in the graphic, it's more about the info not in the graphic. They conveniently left out the HP's a/b/g wireless card, Windows XP Tablet (talk about fail?), battery life (~2.5 hours on the HP), weight (4 lbs), and the fact that comparing a 1 GHz Pentium with a 1 GHz....anything within the past couple years... is not really fair.
Whatever!
Will not make me change my mind about getting the iPad. Sorry.
2. You and this graph fail: iPhone OS > any mobile OS. I bet you that thing run a ****** version of Windows or something.
If you two think I am a troll, you are mistaken. I have been a Macintosh user since 1994 and a member of this forum for 2 years (and a lurker for much longer.) I was simply trying to get info to dispute this graphic and you got defensive and took this the wrong way. Sorry, you failed.
Dispute to whom?? Most people in the medical field know the HP well. It was/is a nice machine, for its designed purpose. Twice as much in 2003 as an Ipad today, refurbs today still twice as much. However another example of specs don't tell the tale.If you two think I am a troll, you are mistaken. I have been a Macintosh user since 1994 and a member of this forum for 2 years (and a lurker for much longer.) I was simply trying to get info to dispute this graphic and you got defensive and took this the wrong way. Sorry, you failed.
To be fair, the HP tablets actually did very well within certain professional environments, which is what they were aimed at. It was just a bit too early for the consumer market, as at the time they were prohibitively expensive for most individuals.There is a good reason why the HP never really took off![]()
OK Mr. Not-a-troll, what is the source of the graphic?