Exactly, the point being that for resolution it's the chip that's the limiting factor in both these cameras - not the codec subsampling of DVCProHD.
But some purchases become obsolescent far quicker than others, and the advantage is with those who can predict what is likely to have the longer life.

I can make a sound case for the HMC150 (it's cheap), and a different sound case for the EX cameras and more latterly the HPX300 (much better quality, better feature set, even if more expensive). But the HPX170? In terms of quality and feature set it offers little more than the HMC150, whilst being far more expensive when you take P2 costs into consideration. In terms of cost, it compares roughly with the EX, whilst not giving anywhere near the performance of the latter.

Yes, all electronic equipment becomes obsolete in time, but it seems that the HPX170 became obsolete almost as soon as it was launched. Maybe it may be a sensible choice as "B" camera to a 2/3" P2 camera, but surely for most people either the HMC150, an EX or an HPX300 are better for most people, depending on how much they have to spend?

The topic was P2 vs SDHC. I think P2 will stay for a while, but the vast majority of new systems within 2 years will be switching to SDHC. I also don't understand why CF cards are not used as a recording media, since they are more stable then SDHC imo. At this point I would not get anything with P2; it would be simply way too co$tly.
I bet there is going to be a split. Consumer and prosumer gear will pursue solid media in a form of card (most likely some sort of SDHC). Pro units (more $$$) will cut down on compressions and will incorporate something simmilat to Aja Ki Pro on board.

Sony's HVR-MRC1 uses CF cards.

I'm a little surprised somebody didn't come out with a device like the HVR-MRC1 a long time ago. We're just not talking about anything very complicated here, from an engineering standpoint, nor something that would cost much to produce once designed. This isn't anything akin to a nanoFlash or the like. The video encoding is done entirely in-camera. All this device does is take the data stream coming out of the firewire port, wrap it in an MPEG transport stream container (not even close to complex software, nor requiring much processing power), and save to a flash memory card. Really basic stuff. With anything like a reasonable scale of mass production of the units, these things could be produced for chump change in China.

Okay, I'm done ranting now. :)

Exactly so. The Firestore has been around for quite a while now - why didn't they bring out a version with CF cards in place of the harddrive?

Think about it - a lot of the Firestore issues centred around power consumption, so battery issues and the need for cooling, so fan noise, and the need for vent holes, so rain could get in...... A move to solid state would have solved the lot at a stroke. And having removable media would have been far more user friendly in many other ways.

I believe some folks have modded Firestores, replacing the HDD with a CF card with IDE adapter.

If you look at the pricing on Firestores, they (further) price gouge for models with higher storage capacity. They wouldn't be able to do that if they used removable CF, or any other removable media - no reason those devices couldn't easily have been designed to use removable HDDs either.

Well being that HDCAM-SR, by far the most popular mastering codec, is what AVCHD spawned from, I think the technology has proved itself to some pretty capable women wearing dusters.

HDCAM-SR, as I understand, uses lossless MPEG4 Part2 Studio Profile intra-frame/intra-field codec which what DVCProHD and AVC-intra are similar to.
It doesnt look to me that a long GOP AVCHD has very much in common with HDCAM-SR whatsoever.