To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
Easier or not is not a question here. If I, lowly software engineer, can install a second drive, partition it, choose where and how to install OS, I highly doubt that Microsoft, Google, [insert company name here] cannot automate this process.
Now your argument might, *might*, apply to smartphones, etc. Even then when device is engineered they know which parts they are going to use, what OS they are going to install. Splitting that space for dedicated usage is the easy part. How to sell that device - that is the question, and thus far it seems that the easiest way is to lie to the consumers.
You are saying that consumers should be aware of this misinformatio, why should he/she? At the end you will get the available space, right? So why lie and frustrate people who might choose to avoid future products of the said company.
My point is that if something is wrong and everybody are used to that wrong, should it stay that way or would you rather do something about it?
Edited 2013-01-30 11:34 UTC





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.