Yeah, you're right that in this case SVN would have a smaller checkout size. So if this is something that you need then SVN would be a clear winner here in terms of disk storage.
However, with the more typical usage pattern of a repository of mostly code and perhaps a handful of smallish binary files, Git is almost always going to have a smaller checkout size despite including the version history.
I also think in this case the difference is like being shot in the stomach, or being shot in the knee. Both SVN and Git are going to give you serious pain.
In the name of science I'm converting the Mibbit repos from svn to git to see what the size difference actually is on a typical repos (I don't have videos in there ;)
Be interesting to see if svn is really that inefficient...
I think the fact that SVN adds almost 100 megs of crap to your checkout does suck. But yeah, I don't think it's a deal breaker. I switched to Git for the features; the smaller "checkout" sizes was just an additional benefit.
Thanks for posting your results, I think it's very cool that you are not a Git fan but took the time to really look into it.
However, with the more typical usage pattern of a repository of mostly code and perhaps a handful of smallish binary files, Git is almost always going to have a smaller checkout size despite including the version history.
I also think in this case the difference is like being shot in the stomach, or being shot in the knee. Both SVN and Git are going to give you serious pain.