3 ms·

I don't understand why your defending this. Do you support this practice? 32 GB partitioned off for apparently no purpose? Also, I've always hated the "you are

by overcyn 14y ago

I don't understand why your defending this. Do you support this practice? 32 GB partitioned off for apparently no purpose? Also, I've always hated the "you aren't the target audience" argument. Lenovo sells a device advertised as having 128GB SSD. But because its targeted for casuals its okay that less than half of that is available? Are they not worthy of getting what they thought they purchased?

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Interesting comment, I don't think of myself of as 'defending' the practice so much as picking apart the original author's argument. The original author is claiming injury [1] based on the available space of the disk in a 128G Lenovo Voyager not being 128GB. On its face that is a silly claim because you have to have some space for other things like the OS and tools. Further no laptop that ships with a 128GB with any OS today gives you, the user 128GB of space to play with. So really the argument would have to rest on the delta between the space available on a completely 'cleaned' machine (all crapware deleted) and a 'fresh' machine. So if the author really needed 128GB of space, they should get the 256GB Voyager 13, since the additional 128GB all is available to the user. Then regardless of the weird partitioning he isn't injured. Now the author could have talked about value, the cost of the device versus the available space and compared that to other models, the author could have talked about system performance, or any number of things but instead they make this claim that 40 - 50Gb of available space is a 'ruined user experience'. Which doesn't seem well supported by his argument. It could be supported by market acceptance but that remains to be seen. As for my feelings on the practice of stuffing all this stuff into the machine, I expect that to sort itself out by people not buying the small disk machine. But of the choice of having a less expensive machine that I spend some time deleting crapware from and having a more expensive machine? I'll take the cheaper one. I may certainly be in a minority there. [1] The injury claim is for "ruining the user experience"

by overcyn 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Interesting comment, I don't think of myself of as 'defending' the practice so much as picking apart the original author's argument. The original author is claiming injury [1] based on the available space of the disk in a 128G Lenovo Voyager not being 128GB. On its face that is a silly claim because you have to have some space for other things like the OS and tools. Further no laptop that ships with a 128GB with any OS today gives you, the user 128GB of space to play with. So really the argument would have to rest on the delta between the space available on a completely 'cleaned' machine (all crapware deleted) and a 'fresh' machine. So if the author really needed 128GB of space, they should get the 256GB Voyager 13, since the additional 128GB all is available to the user. Then regardless of the weird partitioning he isn't injured. Now the author could have talked about value, the cost of the device versus the available space and compared that to other models, the author could have talked about system performance, or any number of things but instead they make this claim that 40 - 50Gb of available space is a 'ruined user experience'. Which doesn't seem well supported by his argument. It could be supported by market acceptance but that remains to be seen. As for my feelings on the practice of stuffing all this stuff into the machine, I expect that to sort itself out by people not buying the small disk machine. But of the choice of having a less expensive machine that I spend some time deleting crapware from and having a more expensive machine? I'll take the cheaper one. I may certainly be in a minority there. [1] The injury claim is for "ruining the user experience"