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

[DoFoT9]

The argument that a lower resolution is somehow better makes absolutely no sense.

i didnt say that lol. of course a higher resolution is going to be better! i have my 27" iMac screen that is amazing. why would i argue that my 1440x900 mbp's screen is better? (i wouldnt)

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

would you call it a 'better' screen? but yes increasing everything would be the main idea.

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

yes i never said that it wasnt.

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?

no of course not! i was referring to having multiple documents/writing tools up on the screen. with 1920x1080 one can fit two pages side by side, but the writing is going to be quite small if you view at 100%. so you will have to either increase the file size and possibly not be able to view the whole page, or increase the font size (which might wreck formatting etc).

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

i find that quite offensive actually. why would i want a 320x240 screen? are you telling me that im not "worthy" of a higher res screen?

in any matter, i have to check it out to fully see what its like.

Try going to the review first:
http://plusd.itmedia.co.jp/pcuser/articles/1002/24/news021_4.html

The first two charts on the page are the temperature. The left is idle, the right chart is under load.

oh my. ~45°C under load? thats truely great! my iMac i7 idles at 45°C hahaha! thanks for that.

p.s. i HATE the look of the keyboard on this machine.

 

[bluehaze013]

Resolution is the biggest drawback of the Z for me, for web surfing even 1600x900 is going to be quite small, would never even consider a 1920x1080 resolution in a 13" laptop. If your main use of the computer is photoshop spreadsheet work or whatever where you need the realestate the res will help but for the average user these resolutions are not going to be ideal.

DPI scaling works in many applications but it is really hit and miss with web pages it won't work properly on many pages and you are going to need a magnifying glass just to read them!

The lower resolution is actually an advantage to the average user for the macbook pro 13" vs. the Sony. I'm really hoping the specs are similiar for the mac and it comes out soon, wishful thinking I know LOL

 

[zipa]

Resolution is the biggest drawback of the Z for me, for web surfing even 1600x900 is going to be quite small, would never even consider a 1920x1080 resolution in a 13" laptop.

ORLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPKZ2S_Jm-g

 

[bluehaze013]

ORLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPKZ2S_Jm-g

Yes rly, DPI scaling does not work properly on many websites nor with many applications. A short youtube video of one website does not convey this at all. Having used a laptop with a small screen and high resolution for a couple years does. It is painful after awhile and really ruins the experience for the average user just wanting to surf the web and play some games.

Higher resolution does have advantages for business users giving them more real estate to open multiple windows and fit them on the screen work with multiple spreadsheets etc which is what the video is showing.

It's really 2 different markets though. The average person just surfing web doing email playing games etc will not be happy with a high resolution on a small screen.

I really want to order the Z, the main thing holding me back is the resolution, I have been suffering with too high resolution on my laptop to the point I barely ever even use it anymore so will be sure not to make the same mistake again this time, that is why i'm waiting to see the specs on the MBP refresh. Otherwise I really want to see the Sony in the store with 1600x900 before making my decision.

 

[solarein]

ORLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPKZ2S_Jm-g

What exactly does this prove?

 

[zipa]

Yes rly, DPI scaling does not work properly on many websites nor with many applications. A short youtube video of one website does not convey this at all.

What exactly does this prove?

I can't tell what you make out of it, but what I'm seeing is a "1080p" laptop filmed at "360p" resolution, and I still don't think that the footage seems in any way too small to read.

 

[solarein]

I can't tell what you make out of it, but what I'm seeing is a "1080p" laptop filmed at "360p" resolution, and I still don't think that the footage seems in any way too small to read.

The footage is filmed at 1080p. But that's irrelevant. To make use of this footage to figure out if the text is too small to read, you need to make sure the screen in the footage is shown in 1:1 scale on your playback device, and that you are looking at your playback device from the same distance as you would be looking at your laptop screen. Yes, surprisingly, whether text is too small to read or not depends highly on the distance from which you are trying to read it.

 

[kny3twalker]

I can't tell what you make out of it, but what I'm seeing is a "1080p" laptop filmed at "360p" resolution, and I still don't think that the footage seems in any way too small to read.

I could choose 1080p resolution when viewing in youtube.

Is the 1080p screen OLED? cause it had much better color depth.

 

[danlun76]

OS scaling and resolution independence is not perfect.

You are wrong because you think scaling GUI elements by changing the DPI works like magic.

You're both assuming way too much, I never talked about resolution independence or DPI scaling did I?

Indeed, I specifically mentioned the things that can be trivially scaled under W7. Icons, fonts and window borders.

As for the rest it's unimportant, even if you could scale everything perfectly you'd lose almost every advantage of having a higher resolution screen in the first place.

The problem with the line of argumentation that you, and others, are pursuing is that you consider having smaller GUI elements a drawback of a higher resolution screen while it is, in fact, an advantage. Indeed, it's the very point of having a higher resolution screen.

Now, I appreciate that at some point things can get too small or fuzzy but that was mainly an issue back in the days of CRT when choosing a resolution at the edge of what the display could handle would make text almost unreadable.

That's not the case today.

My opinion of this discussion as far as it pertains to high-resolution notebook displays is that people who are against them are either in dire need of a visit to their optician or vehemently opposed to anything Apple isn't providing. Nothing I've read so far has in any way contradicted that view.

why would i want a 320x240 screen?

Because that's the logical conclusion from interpolating your argument.

Resolution is the biggest drawback of the Z for me...

The lower resolution is actually an advantage to the average user for the macbook pro 13" vs. the Sony.

That's a rather unsupported assumption, I'm quite certain most users would prefer at least 1440x900 or 1600x900 for the 13" MBP.

However, all the people with poor eyesight should rejoice because there's no shortage of notebooks with a 1366x768 display regardless of you want an ultralight, professional machine or mobile workstation.

 

[tehmeow]

About the debate for USB... FYI sony vaio z has an express card slot..and USB 3 / express card slot adaptators are available. So if you have no use of your express card slot you can just make it as a USB 3 port....

 

[devils punchbow]

pretty simple. If you want W7 get the Sony. If you want leopard wait for updated processors in MBP. I'm waiting.......with probably a better overall machine then what the Sony will be.

 

[Thunder82]

pretty simple. If you want W7 get the Sony. If you want leopard wait for updated processors in MBP. I'm waiting.......with probably a better overall machine then what the Sony will be.

I agree, although, if the 15" MBP has a 1440x900 screen again, ill be jumping over to the Z. The MBP will be a more refined machine, but I can't work on a screen with that resolution again.

 

[bluehaze013]

That's a rather unsupported assumption, I'm quite certain most users would prefer at least 1440x900 or 1600x900 for the 13" MBP.

However, all the people with poor eyesight should rejoice because there's no shortage of notebooks with a 1366x768 display regardless of you want an ultralight, professional machine or mobile workstation.

Theres a reason most every 13" laptop uses 1366x768

 

[tehmeow]

Theres a reason most every 13" laptop uses 1366x768

One word for you: price.

 

[Steve Jobs.]

i am happy with the resolution on my MBP's screen.....

 

[NewGenAdam]

One word for you: price.

well that's one convenient reason, but far from the whole story.


Today's OSs are built to cater primarily for screens of about 100-150dpi. They actually work pretty efficiently with this, and display what you need.
Although the OSs can adapt to higher DPIs, they don't do it perfectly.

For higher resolutions to be effectively exploited, better implementation of user interface scaling would be necessary.

So there is little present value in increasing resolution to points where the native rendering is difficult to read. Few consumers will know how to alter scaling, and those who do won't get an ideal experience.


Therefore: we need properly resolution independent Operating Systems before we can efficiently utilise high DPI displays! (remember high DPI is not necessarily synonymous with high resolution, which can be low DPI on a large screen)


one person who agrees

i am happy with the resolution on my MBP's screen.....

perhaps we'd expect this from the CEO (by name), but I think most would agree with that sentiment.

 

[cutthroughthebs]

Sony wins. Easy.

Yeah, until you go to audition an audio file (or any file for that matter) within the file browser. OS X you can actually audition any file in the browser... way faster for getting work done and the battery life isn't going to touch Apples.. they invented their own. Specs are one thing, then you have to use it and for the things I do... it would loose.

 

[bluehaze013]

well that's one convenient reason, but far from the whole story.


Today's OSs are built to cater primarily for screens of about 100-150dpi. They actually work pretty efficiently with this, and display what you need.
Although the OSs can adapt to higher DPIs, they don't do it perfectly.

For higher resolutions to be effectively exploited, better implementation of user interface scaling would be necessary.

So there is little present value in increasing resolution to points where the native rendering is difficult to read. Few consumers will know how to alter scaling, and those who do won't get an ideal experience.


Therefore: we need properly resolution independent Operating Systems before we can efficiently utilise high DPI displays! (remember high DPI is not necessarily synonymous with high resolution, which can be low DPI on a large screen)


one person who agrees

perhaps we'd expect this from the CEO (by name), but I think most would agree with that sentiment.

It seems to be a phenomena that bigger is always better so people assume oh 1080p on 13" I must have it! LOL

But surely once they actually get a 13" display with 1920x1080 resolution in their hands they will regret it.

Maybe in the future if they ever implement hardware scalers independent of the OS much like the TV's have a bigger resolution will always be better unfortunately at present it's just not the case.

 

[solarein]

You're both assuming way too much, I never talked about resolution independence or DPI scaling did I?

Indeed, I specifically mentioned the things that can be trivially scaled under W7. Icons, fonts and window borders.

As for the rest it's unimportant, even if you could scale everything perfectly you'd lose almost every advantage of having a higher resolution screen in the first place.

The problem with the line of argumentation that you, and others, are pursuing is that you consider having smaller GUI elements a drawback of a higher resolution screen while it is, in fact, an advantage. Indeed, it's the very point of having a higher resolution screen.

Now, I appreciate that at some point things can get too small or fuzzy but that was mainly an issue back in the days of CRT when choosing a resolution at the edge of what the display could handle would make text almost unreadable.

That's not the case today.

My opinion of this discussion as far as it pertains to high-resolution notebook displays is that people who are against them are either in dire need of a visit to their optician or vehemently opposed to anything Apple isn't providing. Nothing I've read so far has in any way contradicted that view.

Because that's the logical conclusion from interpolating your argument.

That's a rather unsupported assumption, I'm quite certain most users would prefer at least 1440x900 or 1600x900 for the 13" MBP.

However, all the people with poor eyesight should rejoice because there's no shortage of notebooks with a 1366x768 display regardless of you want an ultralight, professional machine or mobile workstation.

You just don't get it...

Even if you have perfect vision, can you say that nothing will ever be too small for you to read? If not, then at what point does it become too small? Not sure? Then try to find a 13" display with 1080p resolution. View it at a distance from which you usually view laptop screens, and then let us know if that's too small.

 

[entatlrg]

danlun76 ... you REALLY don't get it ...

With good vision too there is a point/distance text becomes to small to read without straining your eyes ... eye strain leads to premature poor vision ...

Resizing from the native resolution is not the solution, even with Win7 it still does not resize well.

Add the 13.1" squatty screen loosing vertical height ... for me not a good work machine ... great for movies/photo's though, looks beautiful with hi res...

 

[maratus]

Yes rly, DPI scaling does not work properly on many websites nor with many applications. A short youtube video of one website does not convey this at all. Having used a laptop with a small screen and high resolution for a couple years does. It is painful after awhile and really ruins the experience for the average user just wanting to surf the web and play some games.

Higher resolution does have advantages for business users giving them more real estate to open multiple windows and fit them on the screen work with multiple spreadsheets etc which is what the video is showing.

It's really 2 different markets though. The average person just surfing web doing email playing games etc will not be happy with a high resolution on a small screen.

I really want to order the Z, the main thing holding me back is the resolution, I have been suffering with too high resolution on my laptop to the point I barely ever even use it anymore so will be sure not to make the same mistake again this time, that is why i'm waiting to see the specs on the MBP refresh. Otherwise I really want to see the Sony in the store with 1600x900 before making my decision.

Would you mind providing example of problematic website?

And apps are becoming DPI-aware now. At least almost every application I use works fine with 125% and 150% settings. Windows provides bitmap scaling for problematic apps as well.

Don't get me wrong. I personally don't need 1080p but I have no choice. Sony's 13.1" 1080p is 8 bit and is likely non-TN. In other words it may be so much better than 900p version... that it'll be worth dealing with DPI.

P.S. Web browsers, media viewers (images, videos, documents) and MS apps (Office 2007, standard apps) scale extremely well.

One thing Windows 7 lacks is ability to disable any kind of scaling for certain application.

 

[ippikiokami]

Yeah, until you go to audition an audio file (or any file for that matter) within the file browser. OS X you can actually audition any file in the browser... way faster for getting work done and the battery life isn't going to touch Apples.. they invented their own. Specs are one thing, then you have to use it and for the things I do... it would loose.

Where did you get that idea about the battery life? Are you taking into any factors of components and power usage? Battery life is mostly based one 1) Battery Capacity 2) Components in the laptop. While some efficiencies can be achieved with design there really isn't much you can do between two laptops if they were to use the same main components (cpu, gpu, drives, memory, lcd).

Their "invented battery" basically just used lithium polymer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_polymer_battery) instead of lithium ion, made it non removable so they can fit a BIGGER battery in the laptop. and included a chip that can monitor the cells. Make note, they aren't a battery "inventing" company. Just found the best solution from stuff that is out there and put it in their laptop (not downplaying this but technically any company could basically do the same thing )

Considering everything that is in the Sony Z the battery life is pretty frickin good.

 

[wikoogle]

The Z series is too expensive.

They really can't justify it.

The Sony Vaio's F series kick apple's asses in terms of features, and price.

The F Series gives you a blu ray burner, an i7 processor, and a cutting edge 1GB dedicated GPU for cheaper than it costs to buy a 13 inch MBP!!!

I'm picking one myself with the next pay check so I'm pumped.

Or if you want something cheaper, you can get a NW series laptop with awesome specs for under $900!

And all the Vaio's have excellent build quality.

 

[wikoogle]

The OP is a little misleading. The Vaio Z's will only run that much if you max out all the specs and stick in two seperate SSDs.

A reasonably speced Z can be had for a lot cheaper and still run circles around the MBP.

 

[gwsat]

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.

Over the past 25 years I have bought many computers, about a dozen for myself and hundreds for my employer. Until I bought my old PB G4 and the MBP that replaced it, every computer I ever bought was a PC. For some time now, the bulk of the software for PCs has come from Microsoft, whose support for its products is the next thing to nonexistent. Long experience has convinced me that AppleCare's speed and competency in supporting both its hardware and software is in a class by itself. What it all boils down to, I guess, is that you get what you pay for.