If you read the press release, it clearly shows this is aimed at certain professions/industries.Apple releases new iPad with 128 GB of storage
Costs $799 for wi-fi and $929 for LTE. Seems rather pricey to me and I'm not sure the extra storage is really needed, with the push to put everything in the cloud.
It gets worse:http://m.gizmodo.com/5979796/the-128...f-usable-space
Surface pro 128gb only had 83gb usable. How the hell did they manage to use more space than a desktop? The smaller storage option will be laughably small.
Sd cards are great and cheap fortunately but that just seems boated.
Had to look the press release up to see who needs this kind of space...If you read the press release, it clearly shows this is aimed at certain professions/industries.
AutoCAD, music production, and pro football software makers have quotes in the release.Companies regularly utilizing large amounts of data such as 3D CAD files, X-rays, film edits, music tracks, project blueprints, training videos and service manuals all benefit from having a greater choice of storage options for iPad.
Who cares? You can buy a 64gb sdcard and use that. 128gb cards will be on their way soon, too. I don't understand the internet outrage about this.It gets worse:
http://gizmodo.com/5980111/the-64gb-...f-usable-space
The 64 gb surface pro (what the fuck that is) has only 23gb of space - fucking LOL @ microsoft.
Oh, I dunno, false advertising, maybe? It's beyond ridiculous that you have to resort to using a slow SD card to make up for the fact that ~65% of your 64GB flash is used by Windows and unavailable for anything else. This problem simply doesn't exist with Android and iOS alternatives, so Microsoft is screwing the pooch on this. There's no other reasonable way to look at it.Who cares? You can buy a 64gb sdcard and use that. 128gb cards will be on their way soon, too. I don't understand the internet outrage about this.
Windows 8 only requires 16-20gb, do you really think you wont be able to free up any of the space on the Surface Pros when they ship? The numbers are inflated by bloatware, I'm sure almost all of which you can remove without issue. Also, I'm sure you know this, but you shouldn't be comparing Windows 8 Pro to fucking Android or iOS.Oh, I dunno, false advertising, maybe? It's beyond ridiculous that you have to resort to using a slow SD card to make up for the fact that ~65% of your 64GB flash is used by Windows and unavailable for anything else.
The Windows RT Surface isn't much better in terms of initial bloat, and RT compares just fine to Android and iOS. In any case, you're absolutely correct in terms of only needing ~15GB for the OS, and that can be pared down a bit further once it's installed and running. There's no getting around the fact that you will never, ever have the advertised amount of space for use on your Surface (or Surface Pro), or even close to it, and this is a huge marketing difference between Apple/Google and Microsoft devices that is easily exploitable in the minds of the buying public.Windows 8 only requires 16-20gb, do you really think you wont be able to free up any of the space on the Surface Pros when they ship? The numbers are inflated by bloatware, I'm sure almost all of which you can remove without issue. Also, I'm sure you know this, but you shouldn't be comparing Windows 8 Pro to fucking Android or iOS.
There are some fantastically butthurt people out there. Wouldn't put it past them. i.e. the "my Subway foot long sandwich is only 11 inches long" people.Have their been lawsuits alleging false advertising regarding memory size on all these devices before? I imagine someone who has a vendetta against Apple could sue saying an iPhone advertised as 8GB really only has 7.2GB of space or whatever.
Since the early 2000s most consumer hard drive capacities are grouped in certain size classes measured in gigabytes. The exact capacity of a given drive is usually some number above or below the class designation. Although most manufacturers of hard disk drives and flash-memory disk devices define 1 gigabyte as 1000000000bytes, software like Microsoft Windows reports size in gigabytes by dividing the total capacity in bytes by 1073741824 (230 = 1 Gibibyte), while still reporting the result with the symbol "GB". This practice is a cause of confusion, as a hard disk with an advertised capacity of, for example, "400 GB" (meaning 400000000000bytes) might be reported by the operating system as only "372 GB". Other software, like Mac OS X 10.6[3] and some components of the Linux kernel[4] measure using the decimal units. The JEDEC memory standards uses the IEEE 100 nomenclatures which defines a gigabyte as 1073741824bytes (or 230 bytes).[5]
The difference between units based on SI and binary prefixes increases as a semi-logarithmic (linear-log) function-for example, the SI kilobyte value is nearly 98% of the kibibyte, a megabyte is under 96% of a mebibyte, and a gigabyte is just over 93% of a gibibyte value. This means that a 300 GB (279 GiB) hard disk is indicated only as 279 GB. As storage sizes increase and larger units are used, this difference becomes even more pronounced. Some legal challenges have been waged over this confusion such as a suit against Western Digital.[6][7] Western Digital settled the challenge and added explicit disclaimers to products that the usable capacity may differ from the advertised capacity.[7]
Because of its physical design, computer memory capacity is a multiple of base 2, thus, memory size at the hardware level can always be factored by a power of two. It is thus convenient to use binary units for non-disk memory devices at the hardware level, for example, in boards using DIMM memory. That is, a memory capacity of 1073741824bytes, for example, is conveniently expressed as 1 GiB as opposed to 1.074 GB. Software applications, however, allocate memory in varying degrees of granularity as needed to fulfill data structure requirements and binary multiples are usually not required. Other computer measurements, like storage hardware size, data transfer rates, clock speeds, operations per second, etc., do not depend on an inherent base, and are usually presented in decimal units.
Who in there right mind purchased RT anyways. Let them whine. Complete failure of an OS.The Windows RT Surface isn't much better in terms of initial bloat, and RT compares just fine to Android and iOS. In any case, you're absolutely correct in terms of only needing ~15GB for the OS, and that can be pared down a bit further once it's installed and running. There's no getting around the fact that you will never, ever have the advertised amount of space for use on your Surface (or Surface Pro), or even close to it, and this is a huge marketing difference between Apple/Google and Microsoft devices that is easily exploitable in the minds of the buying public.
There are some fantastically butthurt people out there. Wouldn't put it past them. i.e. the "my Subway foot long sandwich is only 11 inches long" people.
Should have specified I was responding to Eyashusa's post.This isn't a consumer confusion issue. Are you fucking kidding me? On a 64GB drive, the OS is using nearly two thirds of the available space on the flash.