When I buy a computer, the OS takes up some of the space, despite what size the storage lists.
MS disclosed this BEFORE anyone purchased the system.
Where's the complaint?
But I'm comparing it to my system (Ubuntu). The kernel takes about 70 MB and the entire system (including LibreOffice, Firefox and a basic apps) fits on a CD (including live environment). That's about 700 MB.
With a full set of development tools and a good selection of applications I come to around 4 GB. That's a number I can comprehend.
Now Windows 7/8 comes into arena somewhere around 16-17 GB on a clean install. This includes the base system, a shell, some tiny utility apps and a Browser. End of list.
WTF?
Heavily compressed, yes. In actuality, it's more like 5GB, considering all the redundancy inherent in these sorts of binaries.
Regardless, Windows libraries alone come to 10GB (between system32, syswow64, and winsxs), because unlike an Ubuntu LiveCD, they aren't shipping just the libraries for the applications on the disc, but a massive, massive set of base APIs, various different versions, etc. This is the cost of legacy compatibility.
Trying to persuade consumers with the capacity of the disk drive is meaningless, but to consumers it doesn't seem meaningless. Otherwise, why would they put it in such big print on the box?
Ultimately this only hurts Microsoft (and anyone else who does this) since it worsens some customer's experiences by giving them false expectations. It won't affect all customers and especially not the tech savvy here who are calling the layman stupid for not knowing the difference between "actual formatted capacity" and the number on the package, but real people none the less.
Actually it doesn't. It runs some weird OS with a scrabble board of apps.