Comments on: Microsoft: You’re doing it wrong. Surface Pro should have more free storage

By: Maria Violet Belan

Maria Violet Belan — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:04:37 +0000

never using anything else again!

By: Maria Violet Belan

Maria Violet Belan — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:04:10 +0000

u obvi do not use a win 8 phone ;) I do!

By: iyfale

iyfale — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:21:46 +0000

Interestingly not much people buzz about Samsung ATIV which has same storage space (for Atom version)…

By: Kevin C. Tofel

Kevin C. Tofel — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:08:03 +0000

I know and appreciate that you’ve been a reader for a long time. Bear in mind that I’ve always tried to look at things as an end-user or consumer in my coverage. And as a consumer, I’m disappointed that 2/3rds of the actual storage space is taken up by Windows, installation files, a recovery partition and built-in apps. There’s nothing nefarious about my post; it’s not about clicks: It’s to point out that the situation isn’t going to help Microsoft sell Surface Pro devices and that there are better ways; ways a 30+ year tech company should already know: have the recovery bits on a USB (or as you pointed out: available online) and work hard to slim down the platform. In any case, thanks for the conversation and the years of support!

By: Spinedoc

Spinedoc — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:50:44 +0000

Which is about the same that a surface pro has when you account for true hd space 1000 vs 1024, a 64gb hd is really a 59gb hd), account for the recovery partition, and the office trial. SHAME on you Kevin, I respect you otherwise and enjoy reading your posts, but this time you sunk to the level of generating clicks with a sensationalistic and misleading article. By the way does Apple include the USB recovery anymore? I may be wrong but last time I checked they didn’t and had you restore from the Internet.

It’s too bad, I expected more from you Kevin after keeping up with you for years.

By: Lucian Armasu

Lucian Armasu — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:00:16 +0000

Mac OS is only like 5 GB I think, and certainly much lower than 40 GB Windows is occupying here.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:29:49 +0000

Best comment ever!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:36:37 +0000

The last word in your article should be “phones” instead of “them”. Implied antecedents are very poor style.

By: John Nemesh

John Nemesh — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:47:52 +0000

How hard would it have been for MS to include an EXTRA 32GB of storage reserved for the system files? Or just skip the part where you “reserve” the memory and put an extra 32GB in there anyway to cover it? This boils down to poor design and greed.

By: Luscious

Luscious — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:07:07 +0000

Another reason why I love my netbook with it’s 250GB Samsung SSD…

I actually have a Surface RT in for testing, and while I do feel the storage space is limiting, the situation is far batter than an Android or iOS tablet. For one thing, Windows RT has a native file system – that means I can view my NAS connected to my network directly from File Explorer, WITHOUT requiring any kind of special “app” to access. In addition, I can connect a thumb drive and 2.5″ hard drive to the USB port, and have a microSD card loaded as well. I can have up to 4 storage devices viewable in File Manager (more if I use a powered USB hub).

If anything, I’d say Windows RT is the OS best designed for tablets, not a crippled smartphone OS merely running on a larger screen.