Hacker News Reader

Comment by gfosco | Hacker News Reader

Right... Apple set the precedent of not having to specify the size lost to the OS, because that magnitude was acceptable. Many people probably never even noticed it, or attributed it to the normal bytes lost.

I would have thought the 64GB Surface Pro would be enough storage for me, but if it only has 23GB usable I would need to upgrade to the 128GB model. I've wanted a Surface Pro since the original announcement, but have been really struggling to come up with any good reasons to buy one.

View on HN

How did Apple set the precedent for that? If you're referring to iOS devices, then they definitely did not set the precedent there. PC manufacturers have advertised total space, not free space, for ages.

Ok, you're right and fair point. PC manufacturers were selling drives with data using up space before Apple. I don't think it was ever very large (in size or percentage of the drive) though was it? Computers weren't branded on HD size either, it was never part of the model number... It was an extra component that could be changed.

I was referring to iP(ho/o/a)(d/ne)s at 2/4/8/16/32GB, losing a decent percentage, without this type of outcry. Sealed devices, marketed on HD size.

How quickly people forget. If you had purchased a 486 with a 20mb hard drive, you'd find dos and windows and norton and whatnot very quickly consuming pretty much all of that space.

Goes back further, even the C64/C20 was hard to squeeze the whole ram out of unless you wanted to scratch build everything. Even a Timex 1000/zx81 didn't get full use of the 2/1k ram. I'm thinking this has been standard literally forever (I'm assuming no one argued over usable space v total space pre-transistor).

That doesn't mean it's right of course - space post-os would be a great spec to have. Also a motivation for more people to question why. A lot of the overhead (CPU, ram and long term storage) on a regular computer or phone is there for good reasons, but I would venture to say the majority of "no-load load" is questionable at best.

One doesn't have to go that far back. I bought an ASUS Eee 900A. It had an 8GB SSD... and Xandros, set up to use UnionFS so you could go back to the original state easily. I took it home, powered it up, and it promptly downloaded enough new versions of packages that the SSD was filled and it hung.

I wiped Xandros, installed what was called Eee Ubuntu (now Easy Peasy) and never looked back (though I since got a bigger SSD, maxed it out on RAM, and happily run Bodhi Linux)--but I can only imagine the wrath of someone who bought one and didn't know that was an option, especially one bought as a gift. I had to wonder whether it was set up to fail.

Not quite. As far as I can tell DOS 3.3 was distributed on one disk for the core OS and commands (~1MB). There were supplemental disks for Basic etc. Windows 3.1 was larger but so were "standard" disks of that time (it was on 7 1.44MB floppies, compressed, but parts were optional).

But there is one huge difference you have overlooked - with your 486 you could install any operating system you wanted. You could even delete bits of DOS you didn't use. With the Apple/Microsoft tablets you can only run the operating system they provide (cryptographically/hardware enforced) and you cannot delete any of the OS.

With that 20MB 486 you could choose what every single byte is used for - and that is true of PCs today. But not for the locked down hardware.

The surface pro is not afaik locked. It's a pc that happens to be made by Microsoft.

I thought MS's ARM-based devices would refuse to boot anything that is not cryptographically signed with a set of MS-controlled keys. If that's still the case, then they're pretty locked in my book.

The Surface Pro is not ARM-based.

We won't find out until mid-February exactly what the Surface Pro situation is in terms of device locking, administrative access etc is.

I can't decide between the iPane and the iPhod.

Just wait 'till next year when they come out with the iPhad.

When the amount of storage lost to the OS is less than 15% or so, as with iOS or android based devices, it's not a big deal. When the amount lost is 2/3 of the entire capacity, especially for a huge 64gb drive, that's a big deal.

> but have been really struggling to come up with any good reasons to buy one

Recently my friend said that he considers buying a tablet and thinking about a Win8 tablet.

He already owns two quite new laptops. So I asked why he needs a Win8 tablet which main feature is the ability to run desktop apps? If you want a tablet then buy a tablet which has apps designed for tablets.

The point about Surface Pro being that it can run both desktop apps and tablet apps, without you having to buy or carry two systems....

Sure, but what desktop apps ordinary users are going to run on Win8 tablets?

Photoshop? Microsoft Office? World of Warcraft?

It doesn't really matter what they're going to do, running actual Windows apps is one of the only major selling points of the Surface Pro (along with performance and the pressure-sensitive pen).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com