Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Oct 2012 20:07 UTC
Windows Interesting little tidbit from the Reddit AMA session with Microsoft's Surface team. One Redditor wondered just how much disk space Windows RT takes up - in other words, if you buy the 32GB Surface RT tablet, how much space is left for your stuff? It turns out that while Windows 8 RT is considerably smaller than its Windows 7 x86 predecessor, it's still huge by mobile standards.
Thread beginning with comment 539216
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Good reasons or bad excuses?
by jared_wilkes on Fri 19th Oct 2012 20:44 UTC
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

"There's some good reasons why it's larger, though."

Well, no, they aren't good reasons. (And you state so yourself in the case of the former.) These are excuses. (In the case of the former "reason," we are too slow, confused, and/or lazy to actually have developed software targeted for this platform yet so we did a hack job -- will you please develop a native app for our platform, we'll pay you?) As to the later excuse, I find it rather disingenuous at best. Are you claiming there are 11GBs of drivers? No, of course not. While Windows 7 has done a better job of including a core set of generic drivers, how often do each of us find that many, many device drivers still need to be installed? So, really, one only needs to ask how much space do included drivers take up on Windows 7 now? (My guess: less than 1GB; certainly far, far, far less than 10GB.) And then one could continue to ask how likely is it the majority of these drivers are going to be needed? (Don't need to include additional modem, ethernet, wifi, bluetooth, hard or optical drivers beyond what either Microsoft or an OEM is installing, etc... You will essentially only need drivers for anything that may interface via usb or wireless -- printers, input devices, etc.) So are we talking about unnecessary bloat -- even when additional drivers are very likely to be a very small percentage of this 12GB?

Edited 2012-10-19 20:49 UTC

Reply Score: 5

minifig404 Member since:
2012-02-26

EDIT: Replied to the wrong post, or other weirdness.

Edited 2012-10-19 22:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

minifig404 Member since:
2012-02-26

Uh, in comparison to Linux, Windows is terrible about generic drivers. Remember, every single USB optical mouse or keyboard with any sort of reprogramability has its own driver. A lot of these from the same manufacturer use the same software, sure, but that is still a lot of drivers. Windows 7 might have better handling of USB drives and wireless network cards, but quite a few categories of devices will cause Win 7 to automatically install the manufacturer's needlessly proprietary driver. Oh, and let us not forget all those programs that install kernel drivers.

Now, most of those drivers are not included on the default install, but I wouldn't be surprised if some windows machines had 5-10GB of drivers.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh, in comparison to Linux, Windows is terrible about generic drivers. Remember, every single USB optical mouse or keyboard with any sort of reprogramability has its own driver. A lot of these from the same manufacturer use the same software, sure, but that is still a lot of drivers. Windows 7 might have better handling of USB drives and wireless network cards, but quite a few categories of devices will cause Win 7 to automatically install the manufacturer's needlessly proprietary driver. Oh, and let us not forget all those programs that install kernel drivers.

Now, most of those drivers are not included on the default install, but I wouldn't be surprised if some windows machines had 5-10GB of drivers.


Because although some vendors support particular standards they also develop their hardware so that they go beyond just those standards. For example I have a Logitech C920 webcam which is UVC compliant but to access all the features you need to have the Logitech driver install. Another example of that would be printers where a printer might support the 'XML Paper Specification' but require additional drivers to then the end user can be notified as to the level of ink remaining or provide diagnostic information when things go wrong. Then there are those vendors who quite frankly 'don't give a damn' and simply ignore the standards or implement them in a broken way thus making the built in generic ones complete pointless (Linux/*BSD btw suffers from the same problem, even when the driver conforms to 100% of the specification the driver developers then have to spend time programming around dumb decisions made by the hardware engineers at said widget company).

As for the installation size, it will be interesting to see where it being used but with that being said the comparison (by some) between the iPad and Surface is silly given that the Surface allows expansion where as with the iPad when you run out of storage you're 'shit out of luck'. I'd sooner give up some 'thinness' for the sake of having expandability thus enable the 'life' of the product to go beyond simply a refresh cycle or two.

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

A very of Windows only doesn't support drivers that weren't available at the time of release.

Most of my hardware comes from the Vista era, so everything has a standard driver. I usually make sure I get the updated Nvidia Driver for my graphics card.

The same statement would be valid to any distro released image or BSD install image. If the hardware is newer than the OS disk you are installing it from, you will have to newer drivers or use very generic (VESA etc).

Reply Parent Score: 2