Microsoft's Surface Pro to ship with as little as 36% of advertised storage available to users

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Microsoft has promised its Surface RT follow-up, the Surface Pro, to be a full-featured Windows 8 tablet complete with a host of built-in apps, but the operating system and software will take up as much as 64 percent of the device's onboard storage depending on the model.

Surface Pro width=


A Microsoft spokesman told The Verge on Tuesday that when the Surface Pro ships on Feb. 9, a large portion of the unit's flash storage will be allocated to Windows 8, pre-installed apps and a recovery partition, leaving users a meager 36 to 65 percent of space to work with.

The base 64GB Surface Pro model will have 41GB of installed assets, leaving users only 23GB of disk space, while the more expensive 128GB version will have 83GB left after a 45GB partition is applied. For its part, Microsoft does warn users of the issue on the Surface webpage, saying that, "System software uses significant storage space. Available storage is subject to change based on system software updates and apps usage."

According to Microsoft, users can create a backup bootable USB and delete the recovery partition to free up space. In addition, the device boasts USB 3.0 ports and a microSDXC slot for expanding storage with removable media.

When the ARM-based Surface RT models were introduced last October, the stripped down operating system gobbled up half of the devices' addressable storage, sparking concerns over how much space would be required for a full-fledged Windows 8 instal. In comparison, Apple's iOS leaves over 85 percent of advertised storage available out of the box, depending on the device and OS version.

Microsoft's statement comes on the same day that Apple announced a new top-of-the-line 128GB iPad with Retina display that is scheduled to hit store shelves on Feb. 5, four days before the Surface Pro.
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 153
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    How does this compare against a MacBook Air loaded with iWork?
  • Reply 2 of 153


    Welcome to Microsoft Blue Screen of Death (BSoD) :


     


     


     



     


     


    Windows 8 version, of course (Microsoft reinvents, the BSoD, yes ...). How creative !  :


     


     


     


     


     


  • Reply 3 of 153
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,736member
    If Apple pulled a stunt like this, Apple would get skewered by the public.

    Yet for some strange reason, the iHaters and trolls are nowhere to be found on this subject. Hmm...
  • Reply 4 of 153
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member


    That's funny, only 23 GB available when you buy a 64 GB surface pro.image


     


    Just how big and wasteful is Windows 8? And what kind of extra apps does it come with that requires so many extra GB's of space? Does it come with a 30 GB, pre-installed porn collection?image

  • Reply 5 of 153


    Mountain Lion requires 8GB and iWork weighs about 822MB once install. If we round it up to 9GB on the smallest 64GB MacBook Air it would occupy about 14% of the total storage.

  • Reply 6 of 153
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    richl wrote: »
    How does this compare against a MacBook Air loaded with iWork?

    OS X and iWork would take up less than 15 GB. Recovery partition is another 3 or 4, IIRC.
  • Reply 7 of 153
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,317member


    I assume Microsoft stock will go up on this news. 

  • Reply 8 of 153


    The recovery partition is actually about 650MB.

  • Reply 9 of 153
    It takes up a lot of space cos its the full x64 install. This is the "compromise" to get full apps compatibility over RT. Pathetic
  • Reply 10 of 153
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Really? We're still intermixing BASE-10 and BASE-2 measurements? Are we doing this so the MS Surface looks worse or are we really not understanding that vendors state the capacity as 1000 for Kilo, not 1024?


    59.60 GiB for the 64GB model and 119.2 GiB for the 128GB model. Win8 is still a hefty beast, just not as bad it's made out to be here.
  • Reply 11 of 153
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    jragosta wrote: »
    OS X and iWork would take up less than 15 GB. Recovery partition is another 3 or 4, IIRC.

    That's a pretty remarkable difference. I wonder what accounts for the extra consumed space of Windows? I can't image that extra drivers take up all that much room.
  • Reply 12 of 153


    If I was ignorant (like the majority of surface buyers, 3 people) i would get really pissed off about this.


     


    (Can we install ubuntu on surface?)

  • Reply 13 of 153
    Wait til the Windows updates start coming... whatever space you start with will probably decrease to almost nothing before too long!
  • Reply 14 of 153

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    Really? We're still intermixing BASE-10 and BASE-2 measurements? Are we doing this so the MS Surface looks worse or are we really understanding that vendors state the capacity as 1000 for Kilo, not 1024?


    The average consumer who buys this won't care. Irregardless of how nice the Surface Pro device is, this is ludicrous.  Marco has the best response regarding this on his blog;


     


    www.marco.org


     


    "Computers, tablets, and smartphones have always had less usable space than their advertised storage capacities because of preinstalled software.


     


    If your computer’s “1 TB” hard drive has 50 GB of preinstalled software and unusable space, you still have 95% of its space for user storage, which is hard to complain about. But advertising a “64 GB” Surface Pro that only has 35% of its space available to the user is a very different story.


     


    This is deceptive enough advertising that the FTC should consider taking action. As tablets become more computer-like and mobile OSes get larger, this is only going to get worse."

  • Reply 15 of 153
    Well of course! After all, we wouldn't want consumers to be confused or anything...
  • Reply 16 of 153
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Marco has the best response regarding this on his blog;

    www.marco.org
    Computers, tablets, and smartphones have always had less usable space than their advertised storage capacities because of preinstalled software.

    If your computer’s “1 TB” hard drive has 50 GB of preinstalled software and unusable space, you still have 95% of its space for user storage, which is hard to complain about. But advertising a “64 GB” Surface Pro that only has 35% of its space available to the user is a very different story.

    This is deceptive enough advertising that the FTC should consider taking action. As tablets become more computer-like and mobile OSes get larger, this is only going to get worse.

    I disagree with this of the lawsuit. If you think it's fine for a company to install an OS and apps on a machine but then advertise the capacity as given by the vendor supplying the HW so long as it's 95% but not when it's 38% (that's the correct value) then you have hypocritical system. If you want to say that anything less than x% of the original total capacity needs to be advertised in a different way then you are talking about making a law. Do you really think that's going to happen?

    As for calling it deceptive you have to prove that MS is trying to deceive. Do you think following the status quo is somehow proof of their culpably for what has been happening since the dawn of computer? I don't.


    PS: Why do some posters use crazy HTML formatting in their posts? It's a huge PITA to clean up.
  • Reply 17 of 153
    There's prolly going to be bloatware. I agree that this sucks....

    However......this device will replace my iPad third gen.

    With the ability to truly multi-task, to not just mirror but dedicate external monitors to different things, run any full blown windows software, expand storage any number of ways (USB flash or HD, SD), easy connection of peripherals, parrot with Apple TV, run mobile apps with an Android emulator, play .iso files, use external burner, Microsoft Office.....the list just goes on and on.

    I'll keep my iPhone 5, Apple TV and MacBook air.....but this will become my primary carry rig with a 256 flash drive keychain.

    I am still loyal to Mac, but any who says this thing doesn't beat the crap out of an iPad simply have their eyes closed.
  • Reply 18 of 153


    Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post




     


    Interestingly enough, just last night I had my graphics card crash in Windows 8.


     


    Yep, you heard me. JUST the graphics card. My display went blank, I heard my GPU's fan spin up to jet engine intake speeds, and I thought Windows had just completely crashed my computer all the way down to a shutdown, but the fan slowed down and my display came back on. 


     


    I worry that this worthless software is going to cause damage to my hardware.





    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    Really? We're still intermixing BASE-10 and BASE-2 measurements? Are we doing this so the MS Surface looks worse or are we really understanding that vendors state the capacity as 1000 for Kilo, not 1024?


     


    It's partially Microsoft's responsibility, since they've yet to make an OS that doesn't lie to you about capacity. 





    Originally Posted by handquake View Post

    With the ability to truly multi-task…




    There goes your argument. 






    …run mobile apps with an Android emulator, play .iso files, use external burner, Microsoft Office…..the list just goes on and on.



     


    Well, when an item on that list is something someone would want to do, you let us know.






    …any who says this thing doesn't beat the crap out of an iPad simply have their eyes closed.



     


    Can't wait for you to buy a 4th gen iPad in March to replace it.

  • Reply 19 of 153


    Windows 8 doesn't sound like bloatware at all

  • Reply 20 of 153
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    It's partially Microsoft's responsibility, since they've yet to make an OS that doesn't lie to you about capacity.

    In what way? I've never known any OS to incorrectly state how much space it's using and how much is remaining. If anyone has been dubious it's been the drive vendors. The PC makers then carried it over but now we're suppose to ignore all of it and just blame MS doing the same for their first PC despite this not being an issue for 3 decades?
Sign In or Register to comment.