<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Windows RT Takes Up Half of the 32GB Microsoft Surface&#8217;s Storage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 07:11:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: shadowmatt</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132780</link>
		<dc:creator>shadowmatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:06:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132780</guid>
		<description>It will probably come preinstalled with every language pack and drivers that Microsoft could cram in. A reinstall usually solves issues like that. Same as Mac Laptops, its always best to format a new machine so you can only install the software / languages / print drivers you need.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It will probably come preinstalled with every language pack and drivers that Microsoft could cram in. A reinstall usually solves issues like that. Same as Mac Laptops, its always best to format a new machine so you can only install the software / languages / print drivers you need.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TankBoyBen</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132734</link>
		<dc:creator>TankBoyBen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132734</guid>
		<description>they shouldnt be allowed to advertise this as 32 64 etc if the operating system takes up a load of the space! there should be operating system storage then advertised user storage, if you never have the use of 32gb then they shoudnt advertise 32gb.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>they shouldnt be allowed to advertise this as 32 64 etc if the operating system takes up a load of the space! there should be operating system storage then advertised user storage, if you never have the use of 32gb then they shoudnt advertise 32gb.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mysticusa</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132730</link>
		<dc:creator>mysticusa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132730</guid>
		<description>Just for clarification: use of GB by many manufacturers is actually fraudulent because GiB and GB are not same things and they should use distinctive and less confusing terms if they want to round things up... You dont confuse 1 LB to 1 KG or 1 foot to 1 metre

Using wrong terminology only benefits manufacturers... It is not for your benefit to be less confused... totally opposite in fact...

They just hide behind SI system to round things down... But truth is they have to state GiB not GB average Joe have no clue about it, and so they get away with it, but i dont understand why governments allow this? Footnote of conversion doesnt make it just as they are still using wrong abbreviation hence the confusion!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just for clarification: use of GB by many manufacturers is actually fraudulent because GiB and GB are not same things and they should use distinctive and less confusing terms if they want to round things up&#8230; You dont confuse 1 LB to 1 KG or 1 foot to 1 metre</p>
<p>Using wrong terminology only benefits manufacturers&#8230; It is not for your benefit to be less confused&#8230; totally opposite in fact&#8230;</p>
<p>They just hide behind SI system to round things down&#8230; But truth is they have to state GiB not GB average Joe have no clue about it, and so they get away with it, but i dont understand why governments allow this? Footnote of conversion doesnt make it just as they are still using wrong abbreviation hence the confusion!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mysticusa</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132719</link>
		<dc:creator>mysticusa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132719</guid>
		<description>&quot;Thats the reason, why 13 GB fixed space shows up as if it is 16-18 GB due to missing real 3GB and 8GB spaces…&quot; 3 and 5 GB spaces... correction... no edit...
GiB≠GB but many manufacturers dont place the real term and abbreviation purposely...

32 GiB &gt;&gt; actually 29 GB &gt;&gt; space used 5+8=13 &gt;&gt; space left 29-13=16
64 GiB &gt;&gt; actually 59 GB &gt;&gt; space used 5+8=13 &gt;&gt; space left 59-13=46</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Thats the reason, why 13 GB fixed space shows up as if it is 16-18 GB due to missing real 3GB and 8GB spaces…&#8221; 3 and 5 GB spaces&#8230; correction&#8230; no edit&#8230;<br />
GiB≠GB but many manufacturers dont place the real term and abbreviation purposely&#8230;</p>
<p>32 GiB &gt;&gt; actually 29 GB &gt;&gt; space used 5+8=13 &gt;&gt; space left 29-13=16<br />
64 GiB &gt;&gt; actually 59 GB &gt;&gt; space used 5+8=13 &gt;&gt; space left 59-13=46</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mysticusa</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132716</link>
		<dc:creator>mysticusa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:13:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132716</guid>
		<description>You guys either dont know computer terminology, or dont know how to add up!

32GB is in decimal (stupid marketing terminology since 16gb HDDs came out, before everything was as sold!... bytes are binary, not decimal, this is only to sell you less by pumping up high artificial numbers...)

32 non-sense GB in decimal is actually ~29 real GB
5 real GB for recovery (factory default image i assume in compressed form?) and 8 real GB for uncompressed system+apps)
so it totals real 13 GB for both not stupid 16 and 18 numbers dont know where you are getting them?

29 and 59 are real GB in binary which is actually is used by everything in the computer... 32 and 64 are the marketing garbage used for idiots... i dont know even why they allow this non-sense!  It is purposely used to confuse people to sell less!

You think your 1TB drive is really 1TB? I tell you: 931.51 GB which is nearly 100GB (92.5) less than marketed, that is ~10% less...

That missing space is not used by windows, or result of formatting as told, it s due to stupid marketing, i dont know why it is even allowed! You wouldnt like buy 1 KG apple only to find out it is actually 0.9 KG apple, would you? What would you tell them? Because they say it is not actually kilo, but new made up kili gram... thats why it is 0.9 Kilo... and they will tell you they already stated 1 kili = 0.9 kilo...

Thats the reason, why 13 GB fixed space shows up as if it is 16-18 GB due to missing real 3GB and 8GB spaces...

As long as governments lets these clowns use same abbreviation and terminology for something different, you will accept the less for more money...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You guys either dont know computer terminology, or dont know how to add up!</p>
<p>32GB is in decimal (stupid marketing terminology since 16gb HDDs came out, before everything was as sold!&#8230; bytes are binary, not decimal, this is only to sell you less by pumping up high artificial numbers&#8230;)</p>
<p>32 non-sense GB in decimal is actually ~29 real GB<br />
5 real GB for recovery (factory default image i assume in compressed form?) and 8 real GB for uncompressed system+apps)<br />
so it totals real 13 GB for both not stupid 16 and 18 numbers dont know where you are getting them?</p>
<p>29 and 59 are real GB in binary which is actually is used by everything in the computer&#8230; 32 and 64 are the marketing garbage used for idiots&#8230; i dont know even why they allow this non-sense!  It is purposely used to confuse people to sell less!</p>
<p>You think your 1TB drive is really 1TB? I tell you: 931.51 GB which is nearly 100GB (92.5) less than marketed, that is ~10% less&#8230;</p>
<p>That missing space is not used by windows, or result of formatting as told, it s due to stupid marketing, i dont know why it is even allowed! You wouldnt like buy 1 KG apple only to find out it is actually 0.9 KG apple, would you? What would you tell them? Because they say it is not actually kilo, but new made up kili gram&#8230; thats why it is 0.9 Kilo&#8230; and they will tell you they already stated 1 kili = 0.9 kilo&#8230;</p>
<p>Thats the reason, why 13 GB fixed space shows up as if it is 16-18 GB due to missing real 3GB and 8GB spaces&#8230;</p>
<p>As long as governments lets these clowns use same abbreviation and terminology for something different, you will accept the less for more money&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dirtymagic86</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132676</link>
		<dc:creator>dirtymagic86</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132676</guid>
		<description>Yes, a full copy of Office. Damn that Bloatware!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, a full copy of Office. Damn that Bloatware!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dja357</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132656</link>
		<dc:creator>dja357</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132656</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see this is a massive problem for anybody buying one of these in the long run. However, there&#039;s going to be some angry people when they buy one and *then* realise that they don&#039;t really have 16GB...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see this is a massive problem for anybody buying one of these in the long run. However, there&#8217;s going to be some angry people when they buy one and *then* realise that they don&#8217;t really have 16GB&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: snapper.fishes</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132640</link>
		<dc:creator>snapper.fishes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132640</guid>
		<description>I get that Windows have very good compatibility, but 16 GB is still too much, especially for a tablet. Are they just installing the normal desktop version of Windows 8 on it instead of a trimmed down tablet version?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I get that Windows have very good compatibility, but 16 GB is still too much, especially for a tablet. Are they just installing the normal desktop version of Windows 8 on it instead of a trimmed down tablet version?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jammin500</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132625</link>
		<dc:creator>Jammin500</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:18:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132625</guid>
		<description>this may be a deal breaker for me.. what&#039;s the point of half the sodding memory.. the OS should be on its own partition and then there should be 16/32/64gb just stupid..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this may be a deal breaker for me.. what&#8217;s the point of half the sodding memory.. the OS should be on its own partition and then there should be 16/32/64gb just stupid..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spazturtle</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132621</link>
		<dc:creator>Spazturtle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132621</guid>
		<description>Can&#039;t store apps on USB devices, they have to be on the device.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can&#8217;t store apps on USB devices, they have to be on the device.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chaywa</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132616</link>
		<dc:creator>chaywa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132616</guid>
		<description>This would be a much bigger issue if you couldn&#039;t use your own USB sticks to store data on. Luckily, you can !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This would be a much bigger issue if you couldn&#8217;t use your own USB sticks to store data on. Luckily, you can !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elevenses</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132580</link>
		<dc:creator>elevenses</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132580</guid>
		<description>Ah, good old Windows Bloatware....nothing ever changes LOL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, good old Windows Bloatware&#8230;.nothing ever changes LOL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: watkins577</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132575</link>
		<dc:creator>watkins577</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132575</guid>
		<description>18GB of space is taken up by Windows RT. 64GB - 18GB = 48GB</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>18GB of space is taken up by Windows RT. 64GB &#8211; 18GB = 48GB</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boopop</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132574</link>
		<dc:creator>Boopop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:39:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132574</guid>
		<description>Ah, typo in this article. The link says 46GB for those who bought the 64GB model. Still a bit of a joke however.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, typo in this article. The link says 46GB for those who bought the 64GB model. Still a bit of a joke however.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boopop</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/windows-rt-takes-up-half-of-the-32gb-microsoft-surfaces-storage/#comment-132573</link>
		<dc:creator>Boopop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/?p=117871#comment-132573</guid>
		<description>So...what incentive is there to get a 64GB model, and why does WinRT use up more space on this model compared to the 32GB model?

My only guess can be MS decided to force some files on those with 64GB of storage that optimise the experience perhaps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So&#8230;what incentive is there to get a 64GB model, and why does WinRT use up more space on this model compared to the 32GB model?</p>
<p>My only guess can be MS decided to force some files on those with 64GB of storage that optimise the experience perhaps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
