Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 16th Nov 2012 07:43 UTC
Windows A California man is suing Microsoft, alledging that his Surface tablet did not provide the advertised amount of disk space. The 32G device has 16G of space for users, as the operating system uses the other 16G. The 64G Surface leaves 45G free for users. The case will turn on whether Microsoft has clearly explained to customers how much free space the Surface leaves for their use outside of the OS. How much disk space does your OS consume?
Thread beginning with comment 542734
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not to defend Microsoft but...
by Morgan on Fri 16th Nov 2012 09:46 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

When I buy a computer with, say, a 500GB drive, I fully expect to see something more like 465GB due to GB/GiB shenanigans. On top of that, I know that the Microsoft OS du jour will take anywhere from 15-20GB by itself, and the restore partition (hidden or not) will take up another 10-20GB. At the worst extreme, that leaves me with 415GB when I paid for 500GB. That's 85GB of "missing" space, which as early as five years ago was a realistic size for an entire system drive.

That said, when you're dealing with disk sizes around 32GB and the mobile OS has an installed size of 16GB, there is indeed a problem. I think Microsoft should have advertised these devices based on the free space, and used a minimum of 64GB in the base model to avoid confusion and lost sales.

Reply Score: 13

Lion Member since:
2007-03-22

I wouldn't call windows RT a mobile OS, it's a full Windows on a different CPU architecture.

I have a Surface RT, I knew how much free space I would have when I got it because I read the damned website before I pressed the button to place my order.

For comparison, my Windows 8 install on my home desktop is using 29.7GB including the program files folders. 21.5GB if I exclude those.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I wouldn't call windows RT a mobile OS, it's a full Windows on a different CPU architecture.


Nonsense, even Microsoft doesn't claim it's a full desktop OS. Otherwise Windows 8 proper wouldn't exist at all and we'd just have RT for x86 and RT for ARM.

Besides, I can put Android x86 on my desktop PC, does that mean it's a desktop OS? In fact, I ran MeeGo for nearly a year on an x86 netbook, and it was more capable than the XP installation it replaced. It could compile and run full desktop GNU/Linux programs. Yet it is still considered a mobile OS. I think it should be based on how you use it; if it's on a desktop PC it's a desktop OS. If it's on a tablet or phone it's a mobile OS. If it's on a laptop it's entirely debatable. ;)

I have a Surface RT, I knew how much free space I would have when I got it because I read the damned website before I pressed the button to place my order.


That was pretty much my point with the 500GB/GiB hard drive example. I think we agree that an informed user will know what they are getting into. The problem is that many people don't read reviews or packaging, then they get the device home and find that their entire Law and Order 1080p Blu-Ray collection won't fit. They are the ones Microsoft should have planned ahead for, and either adjusted their packaging and advertisements or bumped up the base model's storage to compensate.

Reply Parent Score: 4

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

I wouldn't call windows RT a mobile OS, it's a full Windows on a different CPU architecture.


Heh? So Android isn't a full OS and yet it lets you actually treat the micro-sd card like a drive? Oddly enough Android also has drive encryption while RT does not despite Microsoft fanboys telling us that it is enterprise friendly.

Windows RT is a bad joke, it's Office and IE on a tablet for $500 and without any of the basic enterprise features that were on Windows 2000. Supposedly Office on RT runs like crap as well.

But I will be buying a few of them to carry in case a surface dance party breaks out in the streets.

Reply Parent Score: 1

quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Is it really a full windows on a different architecture or something else.....seems more like iOS to OSX in practice though technically I suppose it is.

Buyer beware is true enough but in this case it beggars belief MS thought 32Gb storage with all that bloat was a practicality, cloud notwithstanding, and RT should never have been offered without 64Gb minimum.

Wonder how many buyers of RT realised this beforehand?

Reply Parent Score: 2