I made that statement to drive home a point, as stated above. The devices cost the same, yet you're paying for old hardware the same as you're paying for top of the line hardware. Maybe I said it wrong. Let's try this:
Will you pay the same for a brand new 2010 Ferrari as you would for a brand new 2012 Ferrari? Probably not. That's the point I was trying to make (you can safely assume the 2012 has superior internals in almost all cases).
Palm Devices were terrible not necessarily because of the specs but because of the build quality performance (the Palm Pre was terrible, ther'es a reason why they had to bring out the Pre PLUS, becuase without the extra RAM performance was dreadful).
I tried a Pre on Sprint for < 1 day before I bought it back. Performance was not good. It was terrible. It was night and day compared to the Pre+ on AT&T or Verizon, and even then, the hardware and build quality was still terrible. 3.2MP camera of dubious quality when everyone else had decent to great 5MP cameras (bar HTC devices). The casing felt like it was ready to creak open and fall off the phone at any time. That was WebOS' issue. The hardware it ran on.
And HP did themselves a real disservice by releasing the Pre 2 with practically the same look. Didn't really incite great memories
Palm was very innovative in their Software OS (PIM, MultiTasking, Notifications, etc.). Their hardware was beyond terrible and the first Pre released did have performance issues due to the low amount of RAM in the device. Lots of people had to return their Pres and a lot of others complained of them "falling apart." (maybe not literally, since people are prone to exaggeration on the internet).
The Palm Pre's specs were par for the course back then. Blackberries and even the iPhone 3G/3GS (and some Windows Mobile phones, even the first Android phones) had similar specs.
P4s started outperforming high-end PowerPCs at top end clock speeds in 2002. Not sure where you're going with that analogy... You needed a Dual PPC to beat a top end P4 back then and once Intel introduced their Dual Core processors IBM hasn't been able to beat them. Not sure where you're trying to go with that analogy.