With estimates of Apple's first weekend of iPad pre-orders already topping 150,000 units, we thought we'd take a quick look at just which models TiPb readers -- and staff -- were getting. We posted our survey on Friday, just as pre-orders started and the results can be seen above. A lot of you are either not getting one or are waiting before taking the plunge. For those of you who did pre-order, the cheapest 16GB iPad Wi-Fi was most popular, followed by the most expensive 64GB iPad 3G, and then the 32GB Wi-Fi model.

As to TiPb (and SPE!) staff, here's what we're getting and why:

• Rene Ritchie: I went with the 16GB Wi-Fi version because I want it now and will be getting a 3G version as well so I'm keeping costs down up-front so I can splurge at the end. Also, I have to drive from Montreal to Albany to pick it up, so, yeah.

• Dieter Bohn: The iPad is an exercise in contradictions: looks like it could be a full, multitasking computer, but acts like a giant iPhone. Could be a giant iPhone, but the big screen makes it something more. So I figured I'd embrace the contradiction and get the craziest one in the lineup: 64 gigs, WiFi only. The fact that I have several phones which act as WiFi hotspots helps, though.

• Chad Garrett: It was a tough call, but I need an iPad like NOW. So, I went with the 16GB Wi-Fi only model. I already have a 32GB iPhone 3GS so I can't see the justification of another $130 for 3G on the iPad. The base model will meet my needs just fine and fill the empty hole in my life.

• Jeremy Sikora: I ordered a 32GB iPad Wi-Fi. I blame Rene.

• Chris Vitek: I am going for the 3G because I want the option of having Internet/data connections even without wifi. The large disk size is so I can load lots of photos and media (mostly movies) and apps without worrying about running out of space. I would have preferred a larger storage size, but 64GB isn't too bad.

• Matt Sawyers: I am going with the 3G iPad. While I expect to mostly use the iPad in WiFi areas, to know that I can get 3G away from a Wifi point if I need it. Also the fact that I will not have to pay for the service every month if I do not need it is an extra incentive! The 64GB size will be used for a large number of documents I like to have on the go & I will have a lot of my podcasts & videos on it as well.

• Mickey Papillon, The Cell Phone Junkie: I went with the 16gb iPad because I wanted to get and use the iPad to keep up with the technology, but won't be keeping all my media on it. I determined from my 32gb iPhone that I don't use all the space on it, and in fact, most of the space on the iPhone is being used by music. I will not be putting any music on the iPad, as I have other devices that I use for music (like the iPhone and ipod).

• Matt Miller, Nokia Experts: After much internal debate, I bought a 32GB WiFi-only version because I think it will be a great tool for my daily train commute. It may end up replacing my nook with the multiple ebook client support and it will keep me from buying this year's new iPhone, no matter how cool it might be. I can get a great iPhone app experience on the iPad without having to sign up for an AT&T contract. I never use my iPhone 3GS as a phone so the iPad should also replace my iPhone, but my daughter will be happy to take it from me.

If you pre-ordered the iPad, tell us which one you ordered and why!

In light of AT&T's continuing challenge to support the iPhone and provide adequate coverage and service to iPhone users, TiPb asked our readers whether they thought Verizon could better handle the iPhone. Rumored to have been Apple's first choice, Verizon's advertising focuses specifically on the reliability and reach of their network. Could things have been different if Apple went with them instead?

The results of TiPb's poll to date are:

• 34% (901 votes) thought Verizon's network would be crushed by the iPhone, same as AT&T has been.
• 22% (604 votes) thought Verizon could handle the iPhone better than AT&T, but not without problems of their own.
• 22% (588 votes) thought Verizon could indeed handle the iPhone reliably.
• 17% (451 votes) thought no single network, Verizon or AT&T could handle iPhone level traffic alone, and that it needed to be spread out over several networks.
• 5% (142 votes) thought that it didn't matter, since they were outside the US and their carriers handled the iPhone with no problem.

Taken together, fully 73% (1956 votes) feel Verizon would strain under the weight of the iPhone to one degree or another. These results seem to match the consensus that iPhone users use more features and consumer more data than any other handset user, putting a significantly higher demand on cellular networks. In large cities or at large events, this demand can result in the network failing to provide service. Only building more network capacity faster, or splitting up iPhone usage over several networks, are likely to solve this problem.