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 542891
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Sat 17th Nov 2012 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually you don't seem to understand the meaning of nonsensical.

Nonsensical means without meaning or ludicrous.

What ilovebeer, you and I have are a difference of opinion. Before throwing phrases around, actually learn what they mean.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by segedunum on Sun 18th Nov 2012 13:49 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually you don't seem to understand the meaning of nonsensical.

Nonsensical means without meaning or ludicrous.

Well done.

What ilovebeer, you and I have are a difference of opinion. Before throwing phrases around, actually learn what they mean.

You believe that advertising laws don't exist, don't apply to computing products and anyone who claims that they do must be anti-Microsoft.

I believe that fits my definition of nonsensical. I believe I understand it very well and knew what I meant when I typed it, thank you very much.

Edited 2012-11-18 14:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Sun 18th Nov 2012 18:17 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You believe that advertising laws don't exist, don't apply to computing products and anyone who claims that they do must be anti-Microsoft.


No, that is not what I said. I simply don't believe they have. Stop being a dick and twisting people's words.

I believe that fits my definition of nonsensical. I believe I understand it very well and knew what I meant when I typed it, thank you very much.


You are reaching plain and simple.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by allanregistos on Mon 19th Nov 2012 08:56 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Actually you don't seem to understand the meaning of nonsensical.

Nonsensical means without meaning or ludicrous.

What ilovebeer, you and I have are a difference of opinion. Before throwing phrases around, actually learn what they mean.


Lucas, I wasted a few minutes here just to respond to your arguments. Make it simple. And yes I am using my real name.

Use some common sense:

It is tolerable for Android and iOS to come up with an actual 32Gb storage space but with a few % deducted for an Operating System. If Microsoft came up with the same model (deduct a few percentage from an advertised storage capacity), there will be no suing. Else you will win for this specific case.

But here is Microsoft advertising a 32Gb storage, but with an obscure explanation that it deducted 50% of that storage space is no longer acceptable from a consumer's point of view, that is, from a consumer, NOT FROM YOUR perspective. They(consumer) don't have to pay EXTRA(BUT YOU LUCAS, you can) for an external storage if you expect something that at least you can save more than 80% of your data out from that 32Gb storage, it is a bit unusual, for this is a MOBILE device, THIS IS NOT A PC WHERE you can have terabytes of storage and yes it is tolerable on a PC, you might have >500Gb of storage, but for a mobile device, this is no longer the case if you use your common sense. But because you set your mind that you can buy extra storage because the device have these extra features that others were lacking caused you to be blinded by the fact that other people can no longer afford to pay that extra cost.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by quackalist on Mon 19th Nov 2012 09:42 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

...Use some common sense...


If only Microsoft had used some and not released Surface RT with a not fit for purpose storage option. Indefenseable, though (IANAL) I've no idea if the righteous legal redress will actually come to pass, hopefully the damage to it's brand by the publicity and from the suckers who,unbeknownst/foolishly, end up with one damages them sufficiently to make them think commonsensicaly in future.......pigs might fly, comes to mind

Edited 2012-11-19 09:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Mon 19th Nov 2012 23:04 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


Lucas, I wasted a few minutes here just to respond to your arguments. Make it simple. And yes I am using my real name.


I made it simple. I have said it is a grey area on whether they misrepresented the product.

The court will decide (if it ever gets there) who is right in this forum.

Reply Parent Score: 2