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 550929
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by WorknMan on Wed 30th Jan 2013 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
Member since:

As you say, this issue isn't very important when the space taken isn't relevant (no one complains when Windows 8 uses 20 GB in a 1 TB HDD).

Actually, I do, and I have been bitching about it since Vista. Windows XP was around 1gb installed (give or take a few hundred megs), whereas Vista ballooned up to 15gb. They didn't put 14gb worth of features in there, so I wanna know WTF is taking up all that space.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by Bishi on Wed 30th Jan 2013 18:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
Bishi Member since:

I don't understand it either.

My point was that the percentage taken by a Win 8 install on a 1 TB hard disk is less than the one taken by a Win XP install on a 40 GB disk. So, while my computer engineer brain can't understand it, my standard user brain is OK with it.

Reply Parent Score: 2