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 542887
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by segedunum on Sat 17th Nov 2012 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't get your non-sensical argument I'm afraid. Whether it is Nintendo or anyone else that is still wrong.

I see you're trying to paint this as an anti-Microsoft thing or something now that you've lost all your (nonsensical) arguments.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Sat 17th Nov 2012 18:42 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Lets spell it out for you.

* The "buyer" who is a lawyer, could have easily found out (it is in the small print, which you should really always read), it putting up a class law suit ... instead of buying an SD card.

* The user (ahem... lawyer) is trying to make a name for himself. This is about consumer rights, it is blatantly about himself.

* These things have been around since companies have sold PCS.

* Other companies are doing it, and that hasn't been mentioned or raeged about ... mainly because it is Microsoft.

These are the same arguments I made, earlier and will continue to make.

If you asked me if I thought it was a bit shitty, I would agree and why I won't buy a surface at this time.

If you think it is unfair they don't advertise it more honestly ... maybe. But I am sorry, unless you are a smart consumer you will get ripped off.

All the information is available at your finger tips ... sorry there is simply no excuse.

Edited 2012-11-17 18:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by segedunum on Mon 19th Nov 2012 13:05 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

* The "buyer" who is a lawyer, could have easily found out (it is in the small print, which you should really always read), it putting up a class law suit ... instead of buying an SD card.

You're really, really not getting this, are you? I'm afraid small print does not exclude misleading advertising. That won't wash legally. Secondly a SD card is irrelevant because this is about the actual storage space of the device.

* The user (ahem... lawyer) is trying to make a name for himself. This is about consumer rights, it is blatantly about himself.

Your opinion.

* These things have been around since companies have sold PCS.

Getting half the advertised storage? No, it hasn't. Seagate and WD actually got sued over that for a 5% discrepancy. Arguing that technology products have always been confusing for consumers is not an argument.

* Other companies are doing it, and that hasn't been mentioned or raeged about ... mainly because it is Microsoft.

It doesn't make it right - as has been pointed out to you many times. Whinging that it's all anti-Microsoft is not a counter argument.

These are the same arguments I made, earlier and will continue to make.

Yes, and they're the same arguments that have been shown to be nonsense. You repeat them because you don't have any counter arguments.

But I am sorry, unless you are a smart consumer you will get ripped off.

You've just made a case for misleading advertising there. Congratulations.

All the information is available at your finger tips ... sorry there is simply no excuse.

They aren't, and redefining what you advertise in terms and conditions won't work.

Edited 2012-11-19 13:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2