It really depends on all of the specs. The screen resolution would be the same on the smaller screen, so you wouldn't be giving up anything there, so if you could save $50 and get a 9" instead of a 10", that would be fine with me.
If could do the 9" and cut back on the unneccesary features like webcam, bluetooth, and dropped the 80GB HD for something smaller, and then charged $300 for it, that would be fine with me. Sort of what Asus did with the 2G Surf model EeePCs, but better. The Surf compromised too much to the point the it was almost useless (and not upgradable), and was still about $100 more expensive than it should have been.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It really depends on all of the specs. The screen resolution would be the same on the smaller screen, so you wouldn't be giving up anything there, so if you could save $50 and get a 9" instead of a 10", that would be fine with me.
If could do the 9" and cut back on the unneccesary features like webcam, bluetooth, and dropped the 80GB HD for something smaller, and then charged $300 for it, that would be fine with me. Sort of what Asus did with the 2G Surf model EeePCs, but better. The Surf compromised too much to the point the it was almost useless (and not upgradable), and was still about $100 more expensive than it should have been.