Tuesday, January 29, 2013

ah, consistency

Gizmodo's Gary Cutlack:

"The standard Windows 8 Surface tablets came in for some stick, thanks to the Windows files eating up 13GB of hard drive space. That's nothing compared to Windows 8 Pro, which requires an astonishing 45GB of the Surface Pro's disk space for its files. The numbers, obtained from Microsoft by Softpedia, would make an absolute mockery of the 64GB version of the Surface Pro tablet if replicated there, with the machine possibly only having 19GB of space for users to use if Windows 8 eats up a similar chunk of drive space on the more affordable Pro option."

About four posts ahead of that one, Gizmodo's Leslie Horn:

"Unlike the heady days of 2007, your music and movies and Don't Trust the B— downloads live in the cloud now, not on your device. That's where Apple and everyone else has been pushing people for years, precisely because gigundo-storage devices are expensive and absurd and absurdly expensive for the common man."

So in other words, local storage isn't important, unless it can be used as an excuse to engage in Gizmodo's typical anti-Microsoft ax-grinding.

Update:  In case this weren't clear, this is a topic on which I can reliably be expected to be irrational. So.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Or maybe they're just two different writers with two different opinions?

Freddie said...

Sure sure.

Don O'Neill said...

There's a matter of degrees here. Leslie Horn says 128 GB is far more storage than someone needs on a tablet. Gary Cutlack is saying that the Surface Pro leaving users with only 19 GB free space is laughable. That's a pretty wide range.

Surface is specifically marketed as being able to run MS Office and Windows 7 desktop apps. Well, a typical office installation is going to take most of that 19 gigs. You want to install just a couple other programs like quicken, adobe, another browser or two, and you are maxed out.

I don't read Gizmodo, so I don't know about past unfairness to Microsoft, but in this instance I think both writers are making valid, non-contradictory points.

mistermix said...

If I were reading a review of a tablet, I'd want to know how much space is left after the operating system and a reasonable number of apps were installed. 19GB left on a 64GB device is way less than what a tablet user would expect (where a usual apps + OS total is a couple of gigs) and worth emphasis. It's also a major failure on Microsoft's part, IMO, and I'm writing this on a Microsoft-powered laptop, FWIW.

That said, Horn's "you don't need it" piece is classic awful Gizmodo. Don't fucking tell me what I need, just tell me what it is and I'll decide whether I need it.

Squarely Rooted said...

I'll just say that apps can eat a ton of hard drive space, especially if you're big on games. Some of the particularly awesome iOS games take up .5-1GB a pop. So even if all your movies and music and all the pictures and videos you take all whizz straight away to the cloud you still need some space to download cool apps.

Also, what mistermix said.

Jeff said...

"So in other words, local storage isn't important, unless it can be used as an excuse to engage in Gizmodo's typical anti-Microsoft ax-grinding."

Wouldn't it be equally fair to turn this around and say "So in other words, local storage is super important, unless it can be used as an excuse to be glibly dismissive of Apple's latest product offering"