I know you were wondering.
MessagePad 2000: 42.9 cubic inches
iPad 2: 23.6 cubic inches
The iPad 2 is even slightly lighter: 1.33 lbs. vs. 1.4 lbs.
That’s the second-gen MessagePad. The original 336x240-pixel Newton model was almost as small as an iPad 2: 24.5 cu. in. (And a mere .9 lbs.)
And the original iPad was in between the two Newtons: 37.7 cu. in.
(These are bounding box volumes. All these devices are actually smaller because they’re not squared off. The original iPad, especially, is smaller if that’s taken into account. Drop it into a graduated container of water to see
)
Specs courtesy of everymac.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/messagepad/index.html
I never owned a Newton, but I was curious to compare to Apple’s FIRST tablet product. (Which had an ARM chip, like the iPad 2... at 20MHz.) It even had a removable cover hinged at the left, and a dock of icons at the bottom:
MessagePad 2000: 42.9 cubic inches
iPad 2: 23.6 cubic inches
The iPad 2 is even slightly lighter: 1.33 lbs. vs. 1.4 lbs.
That’s the second-gen MessagePad. The original 336x240-pixel Newton model was almost as small as an iPad 2: 24.5 cu. in. (And a mere .9 lbs.)
And the original iPad was in between the two Newtons: 37.7 cu. in.
(These are bounding box volumes. All these devices are actually smaller because they’re not squared off. The original iPad, especially, is smaller if that’s taken into account. Drop it into a graduated container of water to see
Specs courtesy of everymac.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/messagepad/index.html
I never owned a Newton, but I was curious to compare to Apple’s FIRST tablet product. (Which had an ARM chip, like the iPad 2... at 20MHz.) It even had a removable cover hinged at the left, and a dock of icons at the bottom:

Last edited: