4 ms·

The odd thing is that Windows 8 minimum disk requirements are only 20 GB. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/system-requirements http://windows.micros

by smackfu 14y ago

The odd thing is that Windows 8 minimum disk requirements are only 20 GB. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/system-requirements http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/system-requirem... (It's also interesting to see Marco try to nuance this post. All the Mac pundits have been posting it as a "haha, stupid Microsoft" which is probably why it came to his attention, but he tried to write his blog post in a generic way, that this is a problem with all of these devices.)

masklinn 14y ago
Surface Pro is Win8 + pre-installed tools (e.g. Office Suite) + the recovery partition. The last 2 likely aren't included in the official w8 disk requirements.
- smackfu 14y ago
  That's what I thought (and it's a pretty good counter-argument to the space issue if space is being used by free desirable software) but the small print on the Surface with Windows 8 Pro page says "Word 2013 and Office 2013 are sold separately."
npsimons 14y ago
The odd thing is that Windows 8 minimum disk requirements are only 20 GB (spitting coffee across room) Only 20GB!? I can get a full Linux install, including desktop, development environment, graphics editors, office suites, etc, etc, etc for less space than that! It's sad that people have come to accept "only 20GB" as "not that bad". This reeks to me of the issues MS had trying to shoehorn windows on to netbooks, and just not getting it.
- smackfu 14y ago
  The only reason this is even a story is because of Flash drives with lower capacities. On the desktop, I literally don't care about the tiny fraction of my 3 TB drive the OS is taking up.
  - npsimons 14y ago
    Yes, precisely: Microsoft has never had an issue with releasing a product that eats all the RAM, CPU cycles and hard drive space it could get. Every new release of a Microsoft product had not just the pains of learning a new layout and dealing with the bugs and security holes, but also going through the upgrade cycle, yet again, because Microsoft doesn't seem to care (or be capable) of writing efficient software. Only now that storage on desktops and laptops has given us a glut of capacity do we not care. But in the mobile space, where resources are obviously more limited, Microsoft is a joke: they are so laughably far behind the open source solutions (and Apple) designed to run stably, smoothly and without upgrades for years (decades, even), that we really shouldn't be surprised. 20GB on a desktop or laptop drive where 1000GB has been the norm for a while? Sure, no problem. But even getting Windows 7 down to 17GB so I can get it to fit (along with a few other essentials) on a 60GB SSD for my work development machine was a PITA that shouldn't be necessary. There's no excuse, even if we are "used to it."
    - scholia 14y ago
      Partly it's one of the pains of backwards compatibility. Unofrtunately Microsoft cannot, like Apple, just throw people who use its old stuff under a bus....

by smackfu 14y ago

masklinn 14y ago

Surface Pro is Win8 + pre-installed tools (e.g. Office Suite) + the recovery partition. The last 2 likely aren't included in the official w8 disk requirements.

smackfu 14y ago
That's what I thought (and it's a pretty good counter-argument to the space issue if space is being used by free desirable software) but the small print on the Surface with Windows 8 Pro page says "Word 2013 and Office 2013 are sold separately."

npsimons 14y ago

The odd thing is that Windows 8 minimum disk requirements are only 20 GB (spitting coffee across room) Only 20GB!? I can get a full Linux install, including desktop, development environment, graphics editors, office suites, etc, etc, etc for less space than that! It's sad that people have come to accept "only 20GB" as "not that bad". This reeks to me of the issues MS had trying to shoehorn windows on to netbooks, and just not getting it.

smackfu 14y ago
The only reason this is even a story is because of Flash drives with lower capacities. On the desktop, I literally don't care about the tiny fraction of my 3 TB drive the OS is taking up.
- npsimons 14y ago
  Yes, precisely: Microsoft has never had an issue with releasing a product that eats all the RAM, CPU cycles and hard drive space it could get. Every new release of a Microsoft product had not just the pains of learning a new layout and dealing with the bugs and security holes, but also going through the upgrade cycle, yet again, because Microsoft doesn't seem to care (or be capable) of writing efficient software. Only now that storage on desktops and laptops has given us a glut of capacity do we not care. But in the mobile space, where resources are obviously more limited, Microsoft is a joke: they are so laughably far behind the open source solutions (and Apple) designed to run stably, smoothly and without upgrades for years (decades, even), that we really shouldn't be surprised. 20GB on a desktop or laptop drive where 1000GB has been the norm for a while? Sure, no problem. But even getting Windows 7 down to 17GB so I can get it to fit (along with a few other essentials) on a 60GB SSD for my work development machine was a PITA that shouldn't be necessary. There's no excuse, even if we are "used to it."
  - scholia 14y ago
    Partly it's one of the pains of backwards compatibility. Unofrtunately Microsoft cannot, like Apple, just throw people who use its old stuff under a bus....