This is frustrating. The Surface Pro has a 128 GB option and goes down from there to 64 GB. The Macbook Air has a 128 GB option and goes up from there to 512 GB.
Edit: this is factually incorrect. There is also a 64 GB MacBook Air model on offer; I forgot about it. I apologize.
~90 GB of free space on both 128 GB models seems reasonable. Stepping down to just ~26 GB free on the 64 GB model seems unreasonable: the usable capacity is less than half of the advertised capacity.
I feel similarly about the recovery partition discussion. If you remove the recovery image, I presume you will not be able to recover the Surface Pro without additional media. The Macbook Air, on the other hand, will allow you to do a fresh re-installation of OS X over the Internet with a completely blank disk: it's baked into the firmware. Therefore, removing the recovery image results in a feature disparity between the systems. Grumble.
Microsoft tries to address that issue by including an SD card slot for expanded storage. However, the +$300 that you have to pay to Apple to upgrade from 128GB to 256GB is also completely absurd.
Agreed, it's a bit of a straw man. It's certainly an issue that hard drive capacity is advertised as being higher than it actually is (and that BS apple is pulling is inexcusable), but the actual issue people were taking with the Surface is the fact that when you buy it it's packed so full of bloat and crapware that half the useable disk space is already depleted on a 64gb model.
When people buy a laptop they expect the OS will take up a good chunk of the storage space. When people buy a tablet they don't have that expectation.
More importantly, when the free space is significantly less than half the advertized storage and there is no warning that's the case people are going to be surprized and upset, and rightfully so.
In a Macbook Air the worst you get is a reduction to about 70-75% of the listed storage capacity (in the 128 or 64 gb models), which is annoying but not crazy. In the Surface Pro 64 model you are reduced to about 1/3 of the initial capacity, which is ridiculous and definitely deserves some sort of warning on the packaging, I would think. Expecting a reduction by 1/4 is reasonable common sense, experiencing a reduction by 2/3 is surprising.
This is for people who want tablet + laptop but dont want carry+charge+pay for 2 devices. It's really not that difficult to understand, I dont know why HN has such a hard time understanding this.
"But the iPad is a better tablet!!!", yeh but the surface is a full system.
"But the air is better laptop!!" yeh but the surface has tablet capabilities.
"Buy an Air + iPad!!" I dont want to pay extra plus its a hassle to carry + manage 2 devices
I don't think HN has a hard time understanding it, they just think it's not going to be a successful product. Device consolidation is always tricky, but for it to be really successful the integrated device has to be "good enough" in both areas. E.g. people don't buy consumer digital cameras anymore because cell phone cameras are perfectly serviceable.
Is the Surface Pro a "good enough" laptop? I'd argue no, not with the keyboard/trackpad situation and lack of a rigid connecting hinge. Ars's review noted as much. As it a "good enough" tablet? I'd argue no, not with the weight, heat, and short battery life.
Now, obviously "good enough" is in the eye of the beholder. When people rag on Surface Pro, the thinking is that it's not going to be "good enough" in both roles for the majority of customers, and as such isn't going to sell.
The situation is complicated by the fact that the unit is priced at more serious users, those who can't get away with an iPad + keyboard attachment by itself. Those users are more likely to see the keyboard/trackpad issue as a deal breaker for serious work. Less serious users, who don't need the extra capability, have no reason to look at it over an iPad.
Also, don't forget about how 7" tablets factor into the equation, because they make it more practical to carry a laptop + tablet. An 11.6" MBA + iPad Mini 16GB will run you $1330 versus about $1030 for 64GB for the Surface, and weigh in at around a pound heavier. But, in return you get more combined screen real estate, more combined storage, and triple the combined battery life.
It is about execution. Then it is the difference between:
*) I got an awesome tablet + laptop [best case]
*) Ok laptop but crappy as a tablet (heavy, slow...) [meh]
*) Ok tablet but crappy laptop (don't have access to all the tools, too restrictive, bad keyboard...) [meh]
*) Crappy tablet and crappy laptop. [complete disappointment]
tl;dr: On the 128GB models (Surface Pro vs. Macbook Air), they both leave ~90GB free space.
The problem for Microsoft is that they are competing at the same time against laptops and tablets. For someone who's looking for a tablet, it loses badly to an iPad (the free space sticks out, but it is by now means the only place an iPad wins). For someone who's looking for a laptop, it loses to many laptops (in price, performance, ergonomics - whatever it is you care about, there's something that handily beats the Surface Pro).
Are there any people who are looking for something that's sort-of-a-tablet and sort-of-a-laptop, and are willing to get a device that is not competitive as either? We'll soon find out.
My own experience leads me to believe that until you have perfected a niche (neither laptops or tablets are there yet), extreme specialization always wins against generalization.
A tablet is nothing like as portable as a smartphone (which also has 3G), and nothing like as fast, as powerful or as capable as a laptop (which also has a keyboard).
Are there any people who are looking for something that's sort-of-a-smartphone and sort-of-a-laptop, and are willing to get a device that is not competitive as either?
Especially as they already own both a laptop and a phone ;-)
Well there is me. I wanted a dev machine that I could use as a desktop, laptop or occasional tablet. I ended up with a Sony Vaio Duo which is pretty good at what I want.
Or there is my (leaving) boss who has a laptop, desktop and iPad but is now going to a W8 tablet, probably a Surface Pro or Helix.
Or there is my (incoming) boss who has a desktop and an android tablet but would prefer a single device.
When I show my Duo off to people, no-one has said "what a bad idea". What they have said is "how much" and "can I have it".
While the surface pro itself may not be the right device, there are a lot of people who would like a good convertible device.
>For someone who's looking for a laptop, it loses to many laptops (in price, performance, ergonomics - whatever it is you care about, there's something that handily beats the Surface Pro
Is there an ultrabook laptop with a 1080p touchscreen, an active digitizer with a stylus, atleast Core i5 for $1000 to $1100 ? I am not being facetious here, I am looking to buy something to replace my 6 year old laptop so looking for real suggestions here.
Again, the top comment on an HN thread involving Apple is one that supports Apple by digging up some "fact" or the other that makes Apple look OK. This has always been this ridiculous.
At least AAPL investors are pricing in a future loss of earnings as everyone except the hardcore fanboys move to more open platforms that are priced at 75% to 50% of Apple products and allow you to plug in USB and play along well with other manufacturer's hardware by implementing open protocols like DLNA.
Anecdote : I bought an LG TV and discovered without doing any additional setup, my Samsung phone now shows a TV icon on the photos, and when I clicked it, I was surprised to find the photo pop up on the TV. As I swipe my finger on the phone, the photos scroll on the TV. Voila! I honestly don't know whether this is some kind of PnP broadcast, DLNA, WiDi, or what!
Next : my HP laptop has an Intel WiDi app on it and the TV has a "Wifi Screen Share". Hmm, let's see...bang! Laptop screen now wirelessly mirrored on the TV. LG TV, Samsung phone, HP laptop. I bet Apple products would not work with anything other than Apple this way.
I think part of this comes from the abstractions used for tablets vs. "traditional" computers. (With the surface being viewed as a tablet by most consumers, vs. the air being seen as a traditional laptop).
In tablets, the trend seems to be to abstract away/hide the OS as much as possible – it isn't something that runs on the machine, it is the machine – if that makes sense. Compare this to the laptop world where we're all engrained to conceive of the OS as something that is installed on the machine and in most/all cases is able to be swapped out (insert plug for your favorite Linux distro here, etc.)
So, given that, most consumers willingly accept the space the OS takes up as a given on the laptop yet the same people see the listing the tablet storage including the space required for the OS as disingenuous.
When you want to abstract away something, if your abstraction leaks, it usually hampers the user experience or user perception of the offering – as this case illustrates (IMHO).
> And with one minor tweak that doesn’t affect the system’s capabilities in any way
If that were the case, why would that feature even be included? Obviously it does impact the capabilities, when things go wrong.
Also interesting to note they call it a "minor tweak". What percentage of tablet (or laptop) users even know about a recovery image?
I small fraction, I'd wager.
They're referring to the recovery partition. And while most of the time you're never going to need such a thing, when you're dealing with a device like the Surface it's going to come in very handy when you do.
The suggestion was that you can retain the recovery partition contents on another drive (eg a USB drive), which is something that supposedly can't be done on the MBA. [e: maybe you can.. although the link does not make it clear that it can be removed from the MBA's disk, and the point was really about the saved space]
I agree few will likely know about it, but that doesn't make it invalid, nor is the space saved irrelevant to those that do.
> Microsoft has been pummeled by critics this week over supposedly inadequate storage space in its new Surface Pro.
It wasn't about the inadequacy of the storage space in and of itself – 25/64GB or 90/128GB is not decidedly inadequate for all users, and is (as the article explains) in the ballpark of usable space for comparable laptops.
There's a separate issue regarding the advertising of storage industry-wide that has merit, but this issue is about the amount of usable storage space in the context of the rest of the tablet market.
Sure, the Surface is comparable on storage space to competing laptops including those offered by Apple, but it's not even in the same ballpark as competing tablets.
Microsoft is pitching the Surface as a competitor to both tablets and laptops, separately and together. It therefore needs to compete against features of both, and it seems it can't when it comes to this specific feature.
When did the redefining of a KB from 1024 bytes to 1000 bytes happen? And has it truly happened? If you get 2GB RAM don't you get 2048 MB, not 2000 MB? I've always thought it was just the harddrive manufacturers being stingy, claiming their drives had more than they actually did.
So having "proven" Windows 8 has no advertising (by somehow claiming the apps with ads weren't really part of Windows 8) Ed Bott turns to proving the 128GB Surface has more storage space than the Macbook Air by deleting tons of stuff from the Surface and nearly freeing up as much space as the latter has by default.
Note that the OS X recovery partition is only 650 MB, since it downloads the actual installation image from the internet on the fly.
Are you sure that the Surface Pro's disk actually offers 127.90 GB of block device? To my inexpert ears, that seems to imply that it's actually larger than 128 GB, which sounds wrong.
Wow, and I thought Disk Utility was only a piece of shit for hiding partitions from me :-)
We've had at least one dispute with a customer who didn't get the "advertised" storage space when buying hosting - it's easy to you say this server has 8 x 500GB drives in a RAID10, but we've had a customer unhappy when 1.9 binary terabytes of data didn't fit onto that after RAID metadata, filesystem overhead etc.
So the new product (bigv.io) expresses storage and RAM in binary gigabytes, and I'm thinking I might convert all the dedicated server storage specifications away from lying drive manufacturer sizes, even if that means advertising a 465GiB disc. (or should we advertise size after ext3 overhead arrrggghh).
I hope you stick with the decimal units, because it means that if I have 8 x 500 GB drives, that's 4 GB. If I have 8 x 500 GiB, then I have 3.90625 TiB, which I need a calculator for. Frustrating and annoying.
The fact this conversation is taking place is very droll. Articles are being written, comments and forums are running hot just because so many people are effectively saying "How dare someone say that my favourite vendor's computer has less disk space than another (obviously inferior) vendor"
Isn't anyone just happy to not have a spinning platter of metal in their laptop? There has always been a difference between unformatted and formatted space on disks. Look at an old box of 1.44MB floppy disks and you'll clearly see that formatted space and unformatted space are reported separately. The same thing goes for hard drives. What file system you put on the HD can make a difference too.
There will always be somewhat less space than the full raw capacity. In this case the problem appears to be shipping large pre-installed software and OS on a smallish SSD. Five years from now when higher capacity is cheaper, no one will even care.
Interesting he mentions removing the Windows recovery partition, but not the ML one which is hardly top secret knowledge.
Apple is no better, but none of the other manufacturers are. Storage space is one of those wonderful facts which turn out not to be as factual they could be.
Apple has at least taken up using the manufacturer advertised figures instead of using the real size. So a 1TB drive in Mac OS X looks like it can store 1 TB of data. If you were to download 1 TiB of data from the internet you'd find that your 1 TB disk is a little small ;-).
The author wrongly dismisses the impact of the SSD's spare area on usable storage:
> "The parts about wear-leveling blacks and bad blocks are just part of how SSDs work. On a new SSD these numbers should be very small."
This is absolutely wrong. Modern SSDs reserve a significant part of their NAND even when new. For example, the Micron C400 used in the Surface Pro has 128GiB of NAND and reserves 6.8% as spare area, and thus presents to the OS as a 119.2GiB block device. An Intel SSD 525 with the same 128GiB of NAND reserves 12.6% spare area, so it presents 111.8GiB to the OS. The author's MacBook Air seems to have about 11.7% spare area. They're still fundamentally the same amount of storage, but drives with smaller spare area will generally perform worse when they are nearly full, and having less spare area can also reduce the longevity of the drive.
That is true, but in my experience third-party SSDs don't include the reserve space in the advertised drive size.
For example, I have several "60GB" drives that actually have 64GB of internal storage but the extra 4GB is reserved. I also have several "128GB" drive that actually do show up as 128GB to the OS, meaning the reserve space is in addition to the 128GB, not part of it.
Another 120GB drive I has reports the exact same binary size (112GiB) as the Macbook Air "128GB". So it appears that Apple is including the reserve space in the advertised drive size while third-party SSDs do not.
I recently purchased a 4TB external hard drive. It was the first hard drive I have ever come across that had exactly 4tb of free space when I opened it. Usually its a little bit less. I can remember my 80gig hard drive I spent all summer saving up for back around 2000 only have 66gigs and being totally bummed out.
I know with flash memory the units are more exact, but are they getting better with the spinning hd's with the space accuracy?
> are they getting better with the spinning hd's with the space accuracy?
It's not so much a question of accuracy as it is one of units. Storage manufacturers have typically used GB, software has typically used GiB, labeled as "GB."
Which is why your 80,000,000,000 byte HD is 80 GB on the box but 74.5 GiB when plugged in.
OS X 10.6 decided to harmonize the two: it reports size in terms of GB (10^9), abandoning GiB (2^30), meaning what you see on the box finally matches what you see in software. The downside is that your files appear larger than you may be used to, since that "1.00 GB" (GiB) file is now being reported as "1.07 GB."
The difference is in expectations. The Surface Pro may be slightly immune to that, but when someone buys a tablet, they are buying a media consumption device, so that they can download and read/watch/listen to files at their leisure. There is little file system access, and it is largely abstracted away.
A PC is a general purpose device with full access to the file system and the ability to do much more than a traditional tablet. If the surface is a touchscreen laptop it should be marketed as such. I cant believe that we are all having the discussion around what a megabyte or multiple thereof is. PCs smartphones and electronics have always been so specific as to their tech specs I dont understand who decided it would be a good idea to have a conversion factor between megabyte and a "million" bytes. At the end of the day, however, its just tech press and people with too much time on their hands complaining about a small aspect of a device. Articles like this make me grumpy...
[+] [-] callahad|13 years ago|reply
Edit: this is factually incorrect. There is also a 64 GB MacBook Air model on offer; I forgot about it. I apologize.
~90 GB of free space on both 128 GB models seems reasonable. Stepping down to just ~26 GB free on the 64 GB model seems unreasonable: the usable capacity is less than half of the advertised capacity.
I feel similarly about the recovery partition discussion. If you remove the recovery image, I presume you will not be able to recover the Surface Pro without additional media. The Macbook Air, on the other hand, will allow you to do a fresh re-installation of OS X over the Internet with a completely blank disk: it's baked into the firmware. Therefore, removing the recovery image results in a feature disparity between the systems. Grumble.
[+] [-] jacalata|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Osiris|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mxxx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
When people buy a laptop they expect the OS will take up a good chunk of the storage space. When people buy a tablet they don't have that expectation.
More importantly, when the free space is significantly less than half the advertized storage and there is no warning that's the case people are going to be surprized and upset, and rightfully so.
In a Macbook Air the worst you get is a reduction to about 70-75% of the listed storage capacity (in the 128 or 64 gb models), which is annoying but not crazy. In the Surface Pro 64 model you are reduced to about 1/3 of the initial capacity, which is ridiculous and definitely deserves some sort of warning on the packaging, I would think. Expecting a reduction by 1/4 is reasonable common sense, experiencing a reduction by 2/3 is surprising.
[+] [-] Negitivefrags|13 years ago|reply
Well perhaps they should have that expectation, because the reality is no different on Apple phones or tablets.
My 16GB iPhone should have 15.25GB of space (16 billion bytes), but it doesn't. It's formatted capacity is 13.7 GB.
[+] [-] jimktrains2|13 years ago|reply
Why? My linux install has a full dev environment and office suite and doesn't take a ton of room.
[+] [-] guelo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ishansharma|13 years ago|reply
But not so much with tablets. However, we are also ignoring the fact that its whole Windows 8 there on Surface unlike mobile only iOS which is ~1 GB.
[+] [-] rbn|13 years ago|reply
"But the iPad is a better tablet!!!", yeh but the surface is a full system. "But the air is better laptop!!" yeh but the surface has tablet capabilities. "Buy an Air + iPad!!" I dont want to pay extra plus its a hassle to carry + manage 2 devices
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
Is the Surface Pro a "good enough" laptop? I'd argue no, not with the keyboard/trackpad situation and lack of a rigid connecting hinge. Ars's review noted as much. As it a "good enough" tablet? I'd argue no, not with the weight, heat, and short battery life.
Now, obviously "good enough" is in the eye of the beholder. When people rag on Surface Pro, the thinking is that it's not going to be "good enough" in both roles for the majority of customers, and as such isn't going to sell.
The situation is complicated by the fact that the unit is priced at more serious users, those who can't get away with an iPad + keyboard attachment by itself. Those users are more likely to see the keyboard/trackpad issue as a deal breaker for serious work. Less serious users, who don't need the extra capability, have no reason to look at it over an iPad.
Also, don't forget about how 7" tablets factor into the equation, because they make it more practical to carry a laptop + tablet. An 11.6" MBA + iPad Mini 16GB will run you $1330 versus about $1030 for 64GB for the Surface, and weigh in at around a pound heavier. But, in return you get more combined screen real estate, more combined storage, and triple the combined battery life.
[+] [-] rdtsc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beagle3|13 years ago|reply
The problem for Microsoft is that they are competing at the same time against laptops and tablets. For someone who's looking for a tablet, it loses badly to an iPad (the free space sticks out, but it is by now means the only place an iPad wins). For someone who's looking for a laptop, it loses to many laptops (in price, performance, ergonomics - whatever it is you care about, there's something that handily beats the Surface Pro).
Are there any people who are looking for something that's sort-of-a-tablet and sort-of-a-laptop, and are willing to get a device that is not competitive as either? We'll soon find out.
My own experience leads me to believe that until you have perfected a niche (neither laptops or tablets are there yet), extreme specialization always wins against generalization.
[+] [-] scholia|13 years ago|reply
A tablet is nothing like as portable as a smartphone (which also has 3G), and nothing like as fast, as powerful or as capable as a laptop (which also has a keyboard).
Are there any people who are looking for something that's sort-of-a-smartphone and sort-of-a-laptop, and are willing to get a device that is not competitive as either?
Especially as they already own both a laptop and a phone ;-)
So obviously nobody will ever buy a tablet. QED.
[+] [-] seanx|13 years ago|reply
Or there is my (leaving) boss who has a laptop, desktop and iPad but is now going to a W8 tablet, probably a Surface Pro or Helix.
Or there is my (incoming) boss who has a desktop and an android tablet but would prefer a single device.
When I show my Duo off to people, no-one has said "what a bad idea". What they have said is "how much" and "can I have it".
While the surface pro itself may not be the right device, there are a lot of people who would like a good convertible device.
[+] [-] Steko|13 years ago|reply
Cmon, battery life?
[+] [-] cooldeal|13 years ago|reply
Is there an ultrabook laptop with a 1080p touchscreen, an active digitizer with a stylus, atleast Core i5 for $1000 to $1100 ? I am not being facetious here, I am looking to buy something to replace my 6 year old laptop so looking for real suggestions here.
[+] [-] _debug_|13 years ago|reply
At least AAPL investors are pricing in a future loss of earnings as everyone except the hardcore fanboys move to more open platforms that are priced at 75% to 50% of Apple products and allow you to plug in USB and play along well with other manufacturer's hardware by implementing open protocols like DLNA.
Anecdote : I bought an LG TV and discovered without doing any additional setup, my Samsung phone now shows a TV icon on the photos, and when I clicked it, I was surprised to find the photo pop up on the TV. As I swipe my finger on the phone, the photos scroll on the TV. Voila! I honestly don't know whether this is some kind of PnP broadcast, DLNA, WiDi, or what!
Next : my HP laptop has an Intel WiDi app on it and the TV has a "Wifi Screen Share". Hmm, let's see...bang! Laptop screen now wirelessly mirrored on the TV. LG TV, Samsung phone, HP laptop. I bet Apple products would not work with anything other than Apple this way.
[+] [-] bjustin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] incongruity|13 years ago|reply
In tablets, the trend seems to be to abstract away/hide the OS as much as possible – it isn't something that runs on the machine, it is the machine – if that makes sense. Compare this to the laptop world where we're all engrained to conceive of the OS as something that is installed on the machine and in most/all cases is able to be swapped out (insert plug for your favorite Linux distro here, etc.)
So, given that, most consumers willingly accept the space the OS takes up as a given on the laptop yet the same people see the listing the tablet storage including the space required for the OS as disingenuous.
When you want to abstract away something, if your abstraction leaks, it usually hampers the user experience or user perception of the offering – as this case illustrates (IMHO).
[+] [-] barista|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grecy|13 years ago|reply
If that were the case, why would that feature even be included? Obviously it does impact the capabilities, when things go wrong.
Also interesting to note they call it a "minor tweak". What percentage of tablet (or laptop) users even know about a recovery image? I small fraction, I'd wager.
[+] [-] timdorr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polshaw|13 years ago|reply
I agree few will likely know about it, but that doesn't make it invalid, nor is the space saved irrelevant to those that do.
[+] [-] DannoHung|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adnrw|13 years ago|reply
It wasn't about the inadequacy of the storage space in and of itself – 25/64GB or 90/128GB is not decidedly inadequate for all users, and is (as the article explains) in the ballpark of usable space for comparable laptops.
There's a separate issue regarding the advertising of storage industry-wide that has merit, but this issue is about the amount of usable storage space in the context of the rest of the tablet market.
Sure, the Surface is comparable on storage space to competing laptops including those offered by Apple, but it's not even in the same ballpark as competing tablets.
Microsoft is pitching the Surface as a competitor to both tablets and laptops, separately and together. It therefore needs to compete against features of both, and it seems it can't when it comes to this specific feature.
[+] [-] r00fus|13 years ago|reply
It's not clear that MS should have released the 64GB model for Surface Pro - too much overhead just looks poorly designed.
[+] [-] ari_elle|13 years ago|reply
- Mac OS shows storage space the right way, because it shows capacity in KB/GB (which is base 10 by definition)
- Windows OS shows storage space the wrong way, because while using base 2, it still claims to show you space in KB,GB (but actually it's GiB)
To what is generally better: Well for the common user GB might make more sense, since every storage device is marketed with GB in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quantities_of_bytes
And people who feel cheated because of less storage space seem to ignore the fact that this tablet is running a full Windows Operating system.
I guess it's just the mindset of many to think of tablets as "big smartphones" instead of compact full-fledged computers.
[+] [-] curiousdannii|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tloewald|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dylan16807|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barista|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comex|13 years ago|reply
Are you sure that the Surface Pro's disk actually offers 127.90 GB of block device? To my inexpert ears, that seems to imply that it's actually larger than 128 GB, which sounds wrong.
[+] [-] mattbee|13 years ago|reply
We've had at least one dispute with a customer who didn't get the "advertised" storage space when buying hosting - it's easy to you say this server has 8 x 500GB drives in a RAID10, but we've had a customer unhappy when 1.9 binary terabytes of data didn't fit onto that after RAID metadata, filesystem overhead etc.
So the new product (bigv.io) expresses storage and RAM in binary gigabytes, and I'm thinking I might convert all the dedicated server storage specifications away from lying drive manufacturer sizes, even if that means advertising a 465GiB disc. (or should we advertise size after ext3 overhead arrrggghh).
[+] [-] klodolph|13 years ago|reply
Stick with metric, it's easier on us humans.
[+] [-] rjempson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmcconnell1618|13 years ago|reply
There will always be somewhat less space than the full raw capacity. In this case the problem appears to be shipping large pre-installed software and OS on a smallish SSD. Five years from now when higher capacity is cheaper, no one will even care.
[+] [-] nicholassmith|13 years ago|reply
Apple is no better, but none of the other manufacturers are. Storage space is one of those wonderful facts which turn out not to be as factual they could be.
[+] [-] X-Istence|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtallis|13 years ago|reply
> "The parts about wear-leveling blacks and bad blocks are just part of how SSDs work. On a new SSD these numbers should be very small."
This is absolutely wrong. Modern SSDs reserve a significant part of their NAND even when new. For example, the Micron C400 used in the Surface Pro has 128GiB of NAND and reserves 6.8% as spare area, and thus presents to the OS as a 119.2GiB block device. An Intel SSD 525 with the same 128GiB of NAND reserves 12.6% spare area, so it presents 111.8GiB to the OS. The author's MacBook Air seems to have about 11.7% spare area. They're still fundamentally the same amount of storage, but drives with smaller spare area will generally perform worse when they are nearly full, and having less spare area can also reduce the longevity of the drive.
[+] [-] Osiris|13 years ago|reply
For example, I have several "60GB" drives that actually have 64GB of internal storage but the extra 4GB is reserved. I also have several "128GB" drive that actually do show up as 128GB to the OS, meaning the reserve space is in addition to the 128GB, not part of it.
Another 120GB drive I has reports the exact same binary size (112GiB) as the Macbook Air "128GB". So it appears that Apple is including the reserve space in the advertised drive size while third-party SSDs do not.
[+] [-] wmf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] recoiledsnake|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickdale|13 years ago|reply
I know with flash memory the units are more exact, but are they getting better with the spinning hd's with the space accuracy?
[+] [-] callahad|13 years ago|reply
It's not so much a question of accuracy as it is one of units. Storage manufacturers have typically used GB, software has typically used GiB, labeled as "GB."
Which is why your 80,000,000,000 byte HD is 80 GB on the box but 74.5 GiB when plugged in.OS X 10.6 decided to harmonize the two: it reports size in terms of GB (10^9), abandoning GiB (2^30), meaning what you see on the box finally matches what you see in software. The downside is that your files appear larger than you may be used to, since that "1.00 GB" (GiB) file is now being reported as "1.07 GB."
[+] [-] janus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] S_A_P|13 years ago|reply
A PC is a general purpose device with full access to the file system and the ability to do much more than a traditional tablet. If the surface is a touchscreen laptop it should be marketed as such. I cant believe that we are all having the discussion around what a megabyte or multiple thereof is. PCs smartphones and electronics have always been so specific as to their tech specs I dont understand who decided it would be a good idea to have a conversion factor between megabyte and a "million" bytes. At the end of the day, however, its just tech press and people with too much time on their hands complaining about a small aspect of a device. Articles like this make me grumpy...
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply