Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Jan 2013 00:38 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Marco Arment: "Everyone should play by the same rules. A proposal: storage capacities referenced or implied in the names or advertisements for personal computers, tablets, and smartphones should not exceed the amount of space available for end-user installation of third-party applications and data, after enough software has been installed to enable all commonly advertised functionality. With today's OSes, iPads could advertise capacities no larger than 12, 28, 60, and 124 GB and the Surface Pros could be named 23 and 83 GB." Wholly agreed. When I buy a box of 100 staples, I expect it to contain ~100 staples - not 50 because the other 50 are holding the box together.
Thread beginning with comment 550871
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 30th Jan 2013 10:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

i totally agree, but I mean this:

You bought a 16 GB iPhone 3GS a few years ago. Let's say iOS 4, with which it came IIRC, and the default apps use up 3 GB, so it should be sold as a 13 GB iPhone 3GS. But then iOS 5 arrives at 4 GB and then iOS 6 and 5 GB. Then would mean a 13 GB iPhone 3GS has 16 GB of storage, but can hold only 11 GB of user content.

If we kept the system as it is it would remain a 16 GB iPhone 3GS and we would/should know if you update it you may have less storage available for other stuff.

So why not sell Surface and that Nexus for what they are, but put a note on the website or in the store indicating how much memory is available for users. If the OS gets upgraded and things change it remains the same device, you should change the note.

If you introduce this new system, you will still have devices from the old one. I already find it confusing a GB or TB can have different values with regards to hard disks depending on the manufacturer and date. Now a GB on a hard disk != to a GB of RAM or sometimes it is.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by Bishi on Wed 30th Jan 2013 10:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
Bishi Member since:
2009-08-27

So in essence we are saying the same thing: everyone should know what they are buying, and what they can do with the device.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 30th Jan 2013 10:55 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, I think that's universally good advice.

And I just want to keeps things simple and correct. Stating the total storage amount is more simple (it's 100% correct) than stating the amount of free space, which can change with updates to the system.

Maybe Microsoft will make their Windows install in Surface smaller after people complain regarding the free space. Then a 18 GB Surface would be able to hold 22 GB. It would make even less sense than a 16 GB device being able to store 12 of user content.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by AWdrius on Wed 30th Jan 2013 11:00 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
AWdrius Member since:
2006-07-18

So why don't they do what you suggested in the first place: have different storage space for system and user data. It's not that partitions were invented yesterday, right? Why not put two separate flash chips instead of one? They would be smaller than one big, presumably cheaper too. This way there would be no confusion, user uses user (too many users...) space which size wouldn't depend on any update size, new OS version size, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 30th Jan 2013 11:22 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I guess it would it make less easier and memory the OS doesn't use it wasted yet you paid for it. Also I don't think it would make things smaller, bigger probably which isn't cool for companies that make stuff as thin as possible.

IIRC iOS does have a separate OS partition, but it's just part of the total memory.

In general this all wasn't such a big deal, but Microsoft Surface made a huge gap between total and available storage memory.

Reply Parent Score: 2