I can understand the perspective that after a certain amount of space, it may not be all that important how much space you have. Further, I can accept that disks ship with less capacity than the "raw" capacity listed in the hardware spec for a plethora of reasons (OS-size, software, etc).
That said, I find it rather silly that a disk ships with a certain amount of free space, but that space is fragmented arbitrarily over a bunch of partitions. Vendor-partitions should have almost no extra space if the vendor doesn't want the user to put things in them (Restore and Driver partitions). Fragmented free space is annoying for users. That , I think, is the salient annoyance expressed by this article.
There are some decent arguments for having big local disks, but very few(if any) good ones for disks that ship with randomly distributed free space.
That said, I find it rather silly that a disk ships with a certain amount of free space, but that space is fragmented arbitrarily over a bunch of partitions. Vendor-partitions should have almost no extra space if the vendor doesn't want the user to put things in them (Restore and Driver partitions). Fragmented free space is annoying for users. That , I think, is the salient annoyance expressed by this article.
There are some decent arguments for having big local disks, but very few(if any) good ones for disks that ship with randomly distributed free space.