1 hour ago, wkempf wrote
@DeathByVisualStudio: My main development machine is using 193GB. Both Program Files directories (it's a 64bit install) total about 16GB. So, 45GB is used for the exact same thing as is used on the Surface Pro. OK, not quite. My desktop doesn't have the 8GB recovery partition... but I blow that off of Surface as well. So, 45GB - 8GB + 16GB means not including data I'll use roughly 53GB of the 128GB drive, leaving me 75GB of space for data. Obviously my current desktop is using more than that, but it's data. On can put data offline in various ways: cloud, SDXC card, USB HD, etc. There's very little in my current 193GB that I'd need/want to have on the main storage of the device.
Microsoft hasn't screwed anything up here. There's no difference between the Surface Pro and any other PC, be it laptop, ultrabook, tablet, desktop or server. There's nothing new here. 128GB is small, but usable, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that nothing has changed with the "revelation" here. I'm going to replace my desktop with a device like this. Doesn't matter if it's the Surface or one of the competing devices, they will all have the same storage characteristics. And these numbers have been basically the same for years. Windows 7 had the exact same footprint.
[tap][tap][tap] is this mike on? You totally missed my point. My beef is with the 64GB version. You could make a case for the 128GB version for a lot of people but there will be many undeserved by even that amount of storage. What did you think I meant by these statements?
2 hours ago, SomeDumbAss wrote
They really should have stayed away from the 64GB version and just issued a 128 & 256GB versions.
2 hours ago, AnotherMoron wrote:
The 128 GB/ 83 GB free may be big enough for some office workers but we all know as apps and Windows bloat over the years this space will hardly be enough.
2 hours ago, CheeseMoverHater wrote:
IMO, the 64GB doesn't have a prayer
Suggesting people make the effort to squirrel away their data on USB stick, memory card, the cloud, etc is just more friction for adoption.
1 hour ago, wkempf wrote
And before you claim Windows is bloated and other's are doing better, the MacBook Air has roughly the same characteristics. The 128GB MBA has 93GB free when you purchase it. That's 9GB difference, which is almost entirely accounted for by the recovery partition, where Apple provides an over the air recovery option. We can argue about that 9GB and whether or not it would be better to not have a recovery partition (there's pros and cons, and I won't argue which is the "right" choice), but the reality is that 9GB is roughly 7% of the space and not very relevant, especially when you realize you have the option to reclaim every bit of that space.
I didn't claim that Windows is bloated. Apps grow with data & updates and Windows grows with Windows Updates -- you know all of that stuff in Windows\Installer & Windows\WinSxS. All of that clogs a drive.
That's great Apple has OTA recovery option. Why not Microsoft? They didn't even reach "also-ran" status here.
And why blow away the recovery partition? What about sales guys in the field? They'd loose the ability to recover from a bad update or some other catastrophe. I thought Microsoft put that there for a good reason? Feature, no? Or did they do it wrong?
36 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote
Well, you can dock a Surface Pro and do dev on it, but since the Surface Pro is really underpowered for a general purpose dev machine, it's kind of pointless. You're basically paying lots of money for a machine that's optimised for low power, low weight and ultra-portable, and then asking it to do CPU intensive things whilst plugged into a docking station, which seems a bit like a waste, when instead you could just get a desktop PC with much more power for the same cost because they don't need to optimise for power or portability (which you don't want, 'cos you're going to dock it anyway).
I guess the point is if your tablet is going to spend most of it's time docked, why not get a laptop or a desktop PC instead? Complaining that Microsoft's tablet debut isn't a very good general purpose desktop PC sounds like you've missed that it's a tablet and not a laptop.
It's like saying my Microwave isn't a very good coffeemaker. Well, duh. It's a microwave. If you want to make coffee, use the coffee-maker.
I have a desktop and am not going for a desktop replacement in my case however we have sales people who want to replace their laptops for W8 tablets because they thought Microsoft had the best of both worlds (tablet and laptop) all in the Surface Pro. The 64GB version isn't an option because of lack of available space. The 128GB may be an option for some but for others it will mean a constant grooming of the SDD in 6 months to a year. I have to wonder what the Windows Blue update will do to those machines. Historically service packs haven't been to kind to disk space.
My old laptop (which I did development on while on the road) had the same screen resolution as my W8 Build tablet. The tablet has the same amount of memory and better processor. While the screen is small I have no problem working in Visual Studio nor Eclipse. Both actually run faster on the tablet than the laptop. The tablet packs down smaller even with dock, keyboard, and mouse and is a joy to travel with. I don't sacrifice performance for power.
So in the end it sounds like you are saying the the Surface Pro is a tablet that in some niche cases can serve as more. And here I thought the Surface Pro was going to be everything that Surface RT was not. At least that's what some people said when others complained about the limits of Surface RT and Windows RT devices in general. Oh well...