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 542960
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Obviously not!
by TM99 on Mon 19th Nov 2012 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Obviously not!"
TM99
Member since:
2012-08-26

You two throw your own share of insults around so you can drop the holier than thou bullshit strawman.

Look, you are dead certain it is not false advertising because of your opinions and support of Microsoft. You are certain that this case is bullshit and that anyone that supports it is anti-Microsoft.

What you two are failing to grasp is that there is precedent based on similar (not the same!) cases which warrants that this is quite possibly a case of false advertising. The OS and installed apps on the Surface takes up more than iOS or Android on the same size of internal flash, and that is not clearly stated. Microsoft still advertises it as a 32GB model when in actuality there is roughly 16GB of space. Their FAQ concerning is not easily accessible.

The case has merit. There are indeed laws concerning this. There are indeed prior similar cases concerning this. These are facts that you simply can not argue and yet you continue even now to do so by stating that it is only a matter of opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Obviously not!
by lucas_maximus on Mon 19th Nov 2012 12:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Obviously not!"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You two throw your own share of insults around so you can drop the holier than thou bullshit strawman.


Yeah I do, however when someone keeps on failing to see your point of view (not just on this Story), it becomes soo tiresome. So why not?

Look, you are dead certain it is not false advertising because of your opinions and support of Microsoft. You are certain that this case is bullshit and that anyone that supports it is anti-Microsoft.


Nobody has mentioned that nintendo have just done the same as the Wii-U and it will likely never be mentioned ever again.

What you two are failing to grasp is that there is precedent based on similar (not the same!) cases which warrants that this is quite possibly a case of false advertising. The OS and installed apps on the Surface takes up more than iOS or Android on the same size of internal flash, and that is not clearly stated. Microsoft still advertises it as a 32GB model when in actuality there is roughly 16GB of space. Their FAQ concerning is not easily accessible.


Again, it is a matter of opinion ... it does have a 32gb drive with 16gb free.

How accessible should the FAQ be? Is there an actual number of clicks defined in law ...

Sorry the accessibility of the FAQ is an opinion.

The case has merit. There are indeed laws concerning this. There are indeed prior similar cases concerning this. These are facts that you simply can not argue and yet you continue even now to do so by stating that it is only a matter of opinion.


And since there isn't a definitive verdict in this case, it is a matter of opinion whether they are or not. If and when there is a verdict and it disagrees with me, I will concede you are correct.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Obviously not!
by TM99 on Mon 19th Nov 2012 13:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Obviously not!"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

Yeah I do, however when someone keeps on failing to see your point of view (not just on this Story), it becomes soo tiresome. So why not?


Then please do not be overly surprised if others who see your point of view, but challenge the reality of it also get frustrated with you and your attacks and frankly fight back.

Nobody has mentioned that nintendo have just done the same as the Wii-U and it will likely never be mentioned ever again.


There are several reasons that this is really a non-sequitur to the current discussion. The Surface was released almost a month ago. The Wii U was literally just released yesterday. However, if it proves to be a case of false advertising on the part of Nintendo, then I will have no problem if a lawsuit goes forward for them either.

Again, it is a matter of opinion ... it does have a 32gb drive with 16gb free.

How accessible should the FAQ be? Is there an actual number of clicks defined in law ...

Sorry the accessibility of the FAQ is an opinion.

And since there isn't a definitive verdict in this case, it is a matter of opinion whether they are or not. If and when there is a verdict and it disagrees with me, I will concede you are correct.


But there is merit and precedent for a lawsuit, and it is quite probable that there is some issues with false advertising going on. Previously you and ilovebeer would not even acknowledge that there were laws on the books in the US which covers this nor were there previous cases to offer precedent. You both simply argued repeatedly that it is hatred of Microsoft. If you alone, are now accepting the reality, then fine, let's wait and see what the verdict is. I am also willing to concede that your 'opinion' may be correct if the verdict disagrees with my 'opinion'.

Reply Parent Score: 1