Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

***Sony Vaio Z*** Stone-cold killer! It's going to be Apple Vs Sony for Arrandale imo

gwsat said:
Shortly after I bought my old Powerbook G4 17 inch, 7 years ago, I learned that if the hard drive failed out of warranty a replacement would cost about $500.00.
Click to expand...

That's because Apple would rip you off on the HDD. It's just like RAM. They overcharge on that too.


When I got my current MBP 17 inch a couple of years ago, I got AppleCare for it, too. It is a good thing. My logic board died over the weekend and Apple replaced it at no cost to me.I understand that the retail price for a replacement logic board is about $800.
Click to expand...
As would any other laptop manufacturer, and the extended warranty on other laptops would be less money than AppleCare. Heck, some may offer to come over to your home or business and repair your laptop right there for you.

I'm not saying that your experiences weren't positive. In fact, I'm glad you have positive experiences with AppleCare. What I'm saying is that the reasons you provided for liking Apple could have been any PC manufacturer.

Accordingly, my brother has had great experiences with Dell and Lenovo (he said Dell was better), but that doesn't mean he wouldn't get the same from Apple. ;)


The Vaio Z is great. Like many others, the ONLY thing holding me to the Mac at the moment is OS X. :eek: Also, it's holding on by a thread. I'm sure I'll absolutely need to reconsider my Mac-ness when either Win7 SP2 is out, or Windows 8 is released.
 
niuniu said:
Well Apple charge $3,591.98 for this 13 inch MBP

2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
256GB solid-state drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Backlit Keyboard (British) & User's Guide (English)

So in comparison to Apple's prices and specs, that top of the range VAIO is pretty good value. Remembering it's a compact and light 13 inch.
Click to expand...

Actually, that would be $2899 USD. Lets not use the UK pricing to artificially inflate the cost of the MBPs in this comparison. The only prices we know for the Vaio are the US ones at the moment so how about using the US pricing for the MBPs huh?

The UK price balance is another discussion all together.
 
nufanec said:
Actually, that would be $2899 USD. Lets not use the UK pricing to artificially inflate the cost of the MBPs in this comparison. The only prices we know for the Vaio are the US ones at the moment so how about using the US pricing for the MBPs huh?

The UK price balance is another discussion all together.
Click to expand...

and dont get it started on the Aus prices either ;)
 
DoFoT9 said:
:eek::eek:

thats stupid! why would ANYBODY get that upgrade?

pretty impressive spec's. that machine would be MIGHTY HOT though! like scarily. BD burner is a nice add-on though :D

how does the 330M bench?
Click to expand...

I agree, 1080p is too high on a 13" screen. If I were to get the Z I would get the 1600x900 screen.

Here are the temperatures under load from a Japanese review: http://image.itmedia.co.jp/l/im/pcuser/articles/1002/24/l_tm_1002vaiozr2_34.jpg
It runs surprisingly cool except for the bottom left side, which is where the fan/heatsink is. That part goes up to 45degC under load.

It gets around 6200 in 3dmark06, 2700 in 3dmark vantage.
 
solarein said:
I agree, 1080p is too high on a 13" screen. If I were to get the Z I would get the 1600x900 screen.
Click to expand...
even that would be too high i would thing. depends on dpi i guess.

Here are the temperatures under load from a Japanese review: http://image.itmedia.co.jp/l/im/pcuser/articles/1002/24/l_tm_1002vaiozr2_34.jpg
It runs surprisingly cool except for the bottom left side, which is where the fan/heatsink is. That part goes up to 45degC under load.[/quote]
sorry but that image didnt work for me :( can you try again? 45°C under load? impressive.

It gets around 6200 in 3dmark06, 2700 in 3dmark vantage.
Click to expand...
not bad not bad!!! thanks!
 
DoFoT9 said:
but then that kinda of defeats the purpose of having the HD screen in the first place lol!
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Everything is much sharper. I'm talking about increasing the native DPI, not using bigger fonts.
 
DoFoT9 said:
yes i know what you are referring to. that doesnt make anything bigger tho! youd be struggling to read it at that size.
Click to expand...

Of course it makes stuff "bigger". Look, it's the same as with a 1200 dpi laser printer vs a 300 dpi printer. The output isn't any smaller because of the increased resolution of the output device, it's just a lot sharper and more detailed.
 
zipa said:
Of course it makes stuff "bigger". Look, it's the same as with a 1200 dpi laser printer vs a 300 dpi printer. The output isn't any smaller because of the increased resolution of the output device, it's just a lot sharper and more detailed.
Click to expand...

yes lol. im well aware of what your saying.

you only have to know the real meaning to dpi (dots per inch), and use logic - it gives you the answer straight up!

im young and have pretty good eyes, but when i looked at a 15" 1920x1080 screen, i struggled!

i guess one could always increase DPI + increase system fonts? :rolleyes:
 
DoFoT9 said:
i guess one could always increase DPI + increase system fonts? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Uhh. The point is that you don't need to change any font sizes. You'd be using 120 dpi fonts instead of 96 dpi fonts. That is, everything would be "normal" size, but just sharper and more detailed.
 
I would absolutely get the 1080p screen. AFAIK, Windows 7 scales very well (better than OS X from what I've heard), and just think of the Blu-Rays... :)
 
zipa said:
Uhh. The point is that you don't need to change any font sizes. You'd be using 120 dpi fonts instead of 96 dpi fonts. That is, everything would be "normal" size, but just sharper and more detailed.
Click to expand...

making it sharper doesnt mean that you can miraculously read it. i havent seen a 13" HD screen first hand, so this is only guess work of course.
 
DoFoT9 said:
why would ANYBODY get that upgrade?
Click to expand...
The argument that a lower resolution is somehow better makes absolutely no sense.

If you have that poor eyesight just not get the better screen, or increase the icon, border and font sizes a notch or two.

Higher resolution on a smaller screen is win from any productivity, as well as media, standpoint.
DoFoT9 said:
but then that kinda of defeats the purpose of having the HD screen in the first place lol!
Click to expand...
So 1080p is useless because the GUI is too small and increasing it in size is useless because then you don't get the full advantage of 1080p resolution?

Not a very convincing argument I'm afraid, what you probably want is an 80-line CLI at a 320x240 resolution.
 
danlun76 said:
The argument that a lower resolution is somehow better makes absolutely no sense.

If you have that poor eyesight just not get the better screen, or increase the icon, border and font sizes a notch or two.

Higher resolution on a smaller screen is win from any productivity, as well as media, standpoint.

So 1080p is useless because the GUI is too small and increasing it in size is useless because then you don't get the full advantage of 1080p resolution?

Not a very convincing argument I'm afraid, what you probably want is an 80-line CLI at a 320x240 resolution.
Click to expand...

Not everything can be scaled by increasing the DPI. Only non-rasterized elements of the GUI, such as fonts, can be scaled. Anything that's bitmapped won't be scaled by changing the DPI, or if they are scaled, interpolation results and it's no different as if you are using a non-native resolution on them. Thus any bitmapped icons, images, etc. will either not be scaled or will look bad as if they are displayed using a non-native resolution.
 
solarein said:
Not everything can be scaled by increasing the DPI.
Click to expand...
And that has exactly what to do with my post?

Even if it were directed at me personally rather than my post it's worth noting that I don't have issues with high resolutions. I run a minimalistic UI with the smallest elements possible under as high a resolution as I can.

Heck, I'd go for a 2560x1440 resolution on a 13" screen if I could.

I firmly subscribe to the school of thought that scaling the GUI to 'compensate' for a higher resolution is counter-productive. I'm merely saying it's an option, if you for some reason can't handle 1080p on a 13" screen.

The point here being that a higher resolution is never a drawback, you can always choose to not make use of it. And even if you don't, by scaling various GUI elements, any media would still play in full 1080p rather than being downscaled.
 
danlun76 said:
And that has exactly what to do with my post?

Even if it were directed at me personally rather than my post it's worth noting that I don't have issues with high resolutions. I run a minimalistic UI with the smallest elements possible under as high a resolution as I can.

Heck, I'd go for a 2560x1440 resolution on a 13" screen if I could.

I firmly subscribe to the school of thought that scaling the GUI to 'compensate' for a higher resolution is counter-productive. I'm merely saying it's an option, if you for some reason can't handle 1080p on a 13" screen.

The point here being that a higher resolution is never a drawback, you can always choose to not make use of it. And even if you don't, by scaling various GUI elements, any media would still play in full 1080p rather than being downscaled.
Click to expand...


There are two simple premises which mean high-res isn't necessarily optimal.


(1) today's OSs (windows and Mac OS X) are designed to be run natively on screens with around 100-150 pixels per inch. (they CAN be run on higher DPI, but it would require some tweaking)

(2) OS scaling and resolution independence is not perfect.
In fact it's pretty inconsistently implemented and flawed.


Therefore using a high DPI display means you'd either have to squint like heck, or scale the OS and have a non-optimal OS interface.
I'm not saying it's necessarily worse, I'm just saying it's an adaptation which won't be identical to the standard by any stretch.

Truly resolution independent are a bit of a pipe-dream for now, much as we'd like them
 
Can people stop bitching about non-Apple laptops and the temperatures they get to?

The base of my UBMB gets FAR FAR too hot to touch. Ditto my old MBP, ditto the MB before that. All of them biblically, terrifyingly, burningly hot - AND their PSU's. Just sticking an inside/outside thermometer against my UBMB right now - it's at 40 degrees. Just a bit of browsing and keynote making.
 
danlun76 said:
And that has exactly what to do with my post?

Even if it were directed at me personally rather than my post it's worth noting that I don't have issues with high resolutions. I run a minimalistic UI with the smallest elements possible under as high a resolution as I can.

Heck, I'd go for a 2560x1440 resolution on a 13" screen if I could.

I firmly subscribe to the school of thought that scaling the GUI to 'compensate' for a higher resolution is counter-productive. I'm merely saying it's an option, if you for some reason can't handle 1080p on a 13" screen.

The point here being that a higher resolution is never a drawback, you can always choose to not make use of it. And even if you don't, by scaling various GUI elements, any media would still play in full 1080p rather than being downscaled.
Click to expand...

You are wrong because you think scaling GUI elements by changing the DPI works like magic. It doesn't. Scaling only works for vector elements like fonts and vector graphics. Icons, images, etc. you see in the GUI, on websites, etc. won't scale. They will have to be resampled and interpolated and will look worse than if you had used a lower resolution screen to begin with, or they can stay the same size but that may break your layout and you will still struggle to see them because they'll still be small since they are not scaled. This is the drawback of a higher resolution, because scaling only works for a portion of the things you see. The things that don't scale by changing the DPI, those are the things that give high res screens trouble. Those are the things that would look better if you had a lower res screen to begin with, hence the benefits of a lower res screen.
 
djellison said:
Can people stop bitching about non-Apple laptops and the temperatures they get to?

The base of my UBMB gets FAR FAR too hot to touch. Ditto my old MBP, ditto the MB before that. All of them biblically, terrifyingly, burningly hot - AND their PSU's. Just sticking an inside/outside thermometer against my UBMB right now - it's at 40 degrees. Just a bit of browsing and keynote making.
Click to expand...

I agree, my old unibody Macbook certainly wasnt the warmest laptop I ever owned but it was far from cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back