Official Sony VAIO F Series Owners lounge *PART 2*

Just add an underscore before or after a brand name to stop the link parsing: Amazon_ for example. I understood that you already got yours, the links were for the benefit of other users who might be interested. Geeks are the re-sellers on_Amazon, out of stock should be temporary on their own site, I'd rather cut out the third party & it's cut.

 

This one http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1230/1/

 

The latest indication is that I might receive my dual-CCFL inverter board by the end of the week. Keeping my fingers crossed, since I cannot use my laptop till it gets to me. Hopefully, the long wait would be worth it.

 

"since I cannot use my laptop till it gets to me" - Yes you could with an external monitor. Use Fn +F7 if you can't see automatically the desktop on the monitor.

And please spare us the blow by blow package tracking.

 

Since I'm going to be doing the swap myself, you might let us know the Sony and Grey market part numbers for the piezo invertor.

 

Sorry if you already answered this question, but the replacement screen, was it an original SHARP screen, or a compatible screen?

Thanks.

 

Melody,

there is only one review I have seen where the Toshiba goes head to head with other SSDs and here is the conclusion. The Crucial, along with OCZ and others, use the Indillinx controller. While it is not as good as the Sandforce controllers, it is nowheres near as expensive either. The Toshiba looks to be good in larger R/W, but small read/writes are slow, like the Kingston SSDs. See conclusion page here:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-flash-trim,review-31854-12.html

I have seen other reviews where the Kingston is very slow with small reads and writes. Aparently, Kingston uses the same Toshiba controller?

Bill

 

Obviously it's not the stock OEM LCD otherwise there would be no need to replace a good inverter. He got an_FW replacement display with dual CCFL lamps. Let's wait for him to get the missing part & for his report about how well it is or not.

You can click on his username in his post > find all post by...

 

Thought the crucial use sandforce?For sure I know crucial does make good memory. I think most of us here planning to upgrade to SSD but just kind of holding it, the price is kind of ridiculous now especially compared to regular HDD.

 

Crucial M225 series uses the same Indillinx controller used by several others, including OCZ. The new C300 series uses a Micron controller. While I have always had good luck with Crucial memory and USB drives, I am cautious of SSDs. I know the indillinx controller is no longer the fastest out there, but it has been fairly reliable for several months now. The Micron controller is new and I was not willing to take a chance.

The Sandforce should be great. The price is not. Intel is great also, but the price is not, at least for their best SSDs.

I would consider the slower, smaller SSDs in a portable Power over eSATA drive as a very speedy portable drive. It may be in my future!

Bill

 

The confusion comes from the fact that Toshiba has made parts for other manufacturers' drives, apparently, like Kingston.

But not all Toshiba drives are the same. Here's the link to the product page: http://ssd.toshiba.com/SSD-product-guide.html Only the 32nm series drives support TRIM; I think that's what's used in the F at the 256GB size -- but I'm not sure.

So when you read a review, you need to know which one they're talking about. BTW The Toshiba links at the top and left on that page have some amazing stuff there, like at http://ssd.toshiba.com/SSD-FAQs.html where Toshiba even discusses the internal tests used for and the results of five year endurance estimates. One review site said they'd never seen such open-ness and detailed specs from tests from an SSD manufacturer.

 

Okay, so I didn't remember your exact name when I had only three minutes to check the thread and react. Called you Willy or Billy. My apologies.

But your statement that you didn't base your purchases on anandtech is a bit of a surprise.

Uh? What were those links up above all about then?

 

Hi buddies,I plan to buy a notebook with a good performance,but I want to make decision between new mac pro (with core i7 & core i5) and sony new F series.
I heard Sony F series has battery problem,I want to know is it true?
I have another question about F series display,I want know is it backlite LED?
I didn`t see anywhere that mention the backlite LED of F series.
please help me to make a decision,thanks alot.

 

It depends on your needs, check this forum: What Notebook Should I Buy?

F Premium EU is LED, North American market is CCFL. Half or less of the battery life of the Macbooks_Pro but i7 quads i7 720QM, etc vs 2 cores 620, etc.

 

If you're not doing anything incredibly taxing on the system, mac pro would actually be nice. I assume that since you're actually picking between the two, OS doesn't matter much to you. I personally feel the Mac OS is a bit too restricted.
F has less than half the battery life. Probably about 1/3 - 1/4 actually. And like joe said, screen depends on region.
EU: never seen so i can't compare
US: mac > F (personal opinion)

and it would appear that the mac only has "FullHD" on the 17" model with a max supported resolution of 1920x1200 while the 15" has a max of 1440x900.
vs.
F_series 16.4" 1920x1080 "FullHD"

In terms of performance hardware, the F wins hands down. it is important to note that the i7 that comes with the mac pro is is not a quad-core. also, the F has the Geforce 330M comes with 1 GB VRAM while the Mac pro comes with 512 MB VRAM.

 

Oh I'm sure that the i7 620m MacBook Pros are every bit as fast as a Vaio F with i7 720qm, probably faster in some day-to-day tasks.

The thing is, they cost between $600 and $1000 more. I've been there and done that, and can tell you it's worth it (especially for OS X), but right now I can't afford a $2200 17" laptop so.. whatever.

BTW, there is a 1680x1050 option on the 15", a bit more usable than 1600x900, and there's also that 1920x1200 on the 17", a bit more usable than the 1920x1080 as well.

Some people before have told me that Mac users are just too stupid to use Windows, and as a person who's used both (and OS X since it came out), it's usually the opposite.

A lot of "nerds" are too stubborn and foolish to learn a new operating system, and get frustrated when they use OS X. On the other hand, the dev environment is a lot nicer and I really miss my unix shell when I get into Windows (I've heard PowerShell is better, though).

Then again, I'm already working on OS X with the F series though

A 17" i7 MacBook pro.. hrm that's like a Bugatti Veyron.

The F series is more like a supercharged Jeep SRT8.

 

thanks buddy,as u said the F series battery life is half an hour am I right?
it`s extremely low.
I like mac but macbooks are more expensive than the other brands but they have less performance.
do u know any other sony model that the same as F series with backlite LED & backlit
e keyboard with the same performance & it`s screen bigger than 13 inch?

 

Hahahahaahahahah.

To be COMPLETELY honest, I think a powerful desktop + small sleek laptop with gobs of battery life is a much, much better solution than a "portable powerhouse"

Sometimes taking this laptop out, I feel like Jethro driving Granny's truck.
.. err.. no his mom's truck..

Pearl Peal Pearl... come let us see our girl. Are you still our valentine, do you still look so fine..

Honestly, it feels like a piece of junk next to a MacBook pro. A plain white macbook OTOH, feels like a piece of junk next to a Sony F series! Especially the last gen ones! My bro's 13" squeaks and has actual cracks all over it.

Despite the squeaking, crackling noises you get when you move the F series around on your lap, it's a very solid laptop.

 

This is the weirdest thread I've read, anywhere, bar none.
You guys are angry, man. lol.

The US F isn't an LED screen? That's really surprising. Thought LEDs were pretty much standard now, esp on a 1080p screen.

 

Oh really? I really like my laptop, and almost don't want to give it up for a week of replacing the LCD. In fact, from what I've heard about defective LCDs I'm paranoid I'd trade a few dead pixels for horrible viewing angles.

I think the machine is well built, fast, and most importantly runs so cool for the amount of power it has. When I had the chance to get another machine of any kind (my first F had some problems), I instead chose to get another F because it ran cool.

That's a precious thing XD

And yes we're mad.

 

well i'd say you can get about 2 hours out of it decently enough.

and i don't think sony carries anything like that. I'm actually not sure if Sony uses LED's in any of their US models. I don't think so. As for EU models, joe says they use LED for the F.

For performance, again, it really depends on what you will be using it for. as OoTLink said, you won't notice a difference between the mac and F_series specs under normal conditions.
i'd also have to agree with OoTLink's comment about the overall build quality. The mac pro is much more solid and nicer to carry around, not that the F isn't. personally, i think the mac is a much sleeker machine overall but the little performance boosts in the F won me over (and that i don't like the mac OS). i just wish we had an LED screen...

everyone seems to like the FW LCD's and the ones i've seen are quite nice. if you're interested, check out the vaio outlet on the sonystyle site. the FW specs are a little lower but by no means bad. just to widen your options a bit.

 

Vaio_F_Series: 1080p Premium is LED & Color Spaces Clarifications

 

I don't get the big deal about the FW, when they were Sony's US flagship I liked them quite a bit too. But, next to the F series I wouldn't want one.

Granted, the FW sparked my interest in a super-sized Sony laptop. When I sold my MacBook and sought after a replacement, I brought it up as a joke with one of my friends and during lunch I went to hang out with him at Frys and saw the F series. lol

I always wanted a stupid big laptop (I had lusted after the 17" PowerBook G4 for ages but needed a PB in a hurry, so I settled for a 15") >>

Nice to finally have one

 

haha. can't say i've always wanted a stupidly big laptop but i do like the F. the FW is nice but it doesn't really strike me as being all too special. Just that it's been brought up a lot here for having a nicer screen than the F.

 

Hello again!
I received a EU CTO F Series again (since my first one had the high pitched noise "problem"), and overall I'm very happy with it.
It does still have the high pitched noise (which I got rid of with the mic fix), but this time I won't bother going through trouble again, cause I missed this laptop so much and this new baby is staying. :]
Plus I hear high pitched noises everywhere near computers now...

Anyways, the reason I'm writing this is because of the screen (EU Premium).
If you look on the german Sony site ( http://www.sony.de/product/vn-f-series), you can see they do not mention the 100% Adobe RGB Coverage anymore.
They did when I bought my first F.
Plus when applying Matt's color profile (thanks again btw :] ) I noticed there were way less default profiles to choose from. Plus in my first model I had some kind of Adobe Color Profile I could choose. This one is missing too...
I guess they are using different screens now?
This being said, personally I do not notice any difference in the screen. It is still very impressive and with no bleed at all. So I don't care.

Just thought I'd let you guys know, since you all seem to like the screen speculations. ^^

 

Derrida, no problem!


Yes, I linked to Anandtech. I also linked to Tom's Hardware about the Crucials. I could link to Notebook Check about other SSDs. The fact is that I research a lot before I purchase. There were also glowing reviews on Digitalloyd and Barefeats, but their reviews looked biased to me. In fact, Digitalloyd has since updated their review of the Mercury Extreme to say that there is really no reason to be concerned with the "Firestorm" that I created on Anandtech's site when I questioned which controller I was actually going to receive. Again, the Mercury Extreme is still an excellent SSD, but for me I had to return it simply because I felt it was a bait and switch tactic.

I do read and trust Anandtech. The reviews never pull punches. However, I do not believe that Anandtech has actually reviewed the SSDs that I use, although most Indillinx controllers will produce nearly identical results, so I can safely infer the kind of performance I should get. Add to that Crucial's (Micron's) excellent reputation with other products, and add to that the low $2.26/GB price for the 256GB drive, and you can see why I switched.

In reality, Anandtech reviewed the 100GB OCZ Vertex LE and the 50GB Mercury Extreme. Other sites reviewed the 100GB Mercury Extreme. From these reviews, plus reading about Sandforce, I was ready to pay the premium for the 200GB Mercury Extreme. Really, the controller is what makes these things work, so different brands with the same controllers work nearly the same.

Honestly, if Intel's new value series 40GB would have stayed under $95 like they had originally planned, I would have bought one and stuck it in a 2.5" external Power Over eSATA enclosure and used it as a very fast and very large USB type drive.

Bill

 

Hi Migu,

HOW did you manage to return your 1st CTO ? Did Sony offer to take it back or did you have to argue your case ? Did they refund your money and let you re-order , or did they keep the money as credit for you to buy another CTO ?

My F11 still whines after they changed the fan. I have been on touch with them and they are going to take another look at it, and are keeping it under the same repair reference number as before.

They will be picking it up in another 1.5 wks as I requested. If it comes back with the same whine I may want to return it if possible and consider getting a F series CTO with i5 instead of i7.

 

I know about the external monitor but I have not had either a desktop or an external monitor in over 10+ years.....it has been laptops all the way.

 

It is a different original SHARP screen than what came on the F-series. The F-series gets a single-CCFL screen (SHARP part#: LQ164M1DC), while the one I am replacing it with, is a dual-CCFL screen (SHARP part#: LQ164M1LA4A), which came on an earlier FW-series model (FW490).

When ordering the new screen, I missed the fact that I should also have ordered a dual-slot-inverter (since the new screen is a dual-CCFL screen) and hence this extra wait for the new inverter to get to me.

 

Thanks for the info, I just wanted to know if it was a real SHARP screen, not a clone (if there is such a thing for lcds).

 

Yeah, the good thing is that there are very few LCD makers actually. And the additional good thing about a "non standard" size like 16.4", is that even if there were some "cloners", they would not be interested in this small a market.

Another curious thing I noticed about the new screen is that even though it is also a glossy screen like my F-series, it is a MUCH deeper black than the F-series screen. I guess that should prove to have FAR better contrast than the "full-hd" F-series screen.

 

Hi tausif,

don't know how that works in the UK, but in Germany you can return your CTO within 30 days. You then have the option for a full refund or an exchange. I went for the refund, because I wanted to wait for a couple of weeks for them to fix the issues.
Everything went fairly smooth, did not have to argue whatsoever. Just told them I had the high pitched noise and some other minor things that bugged me, that's all.

Good luck!

 

Thanks. Yes, I did an extensive analysis of the advertisements on the Sony sites and came to the same conclusion from the marketing and the order forms. Your testimony, having actually seen and used both, is invaluable.

What your eyes have seen, they have seen. Changed color default profiles and the absence of an Adobe profile options are not "spec"-ulations: they're facts.

I love facts. Merci beaucoup!

 

Well, yes, it is used in the FW490 but it is the cheaper of two LCD possibilities offered for the FW490. Sony sells this one for $349.99 and the other one for $1300 and change. And this screen for $349.99 was on the FW390 parts list as well.

So, just as we have now discovered that the EU premium exists in two versions, with different color profiles, etc., well, we now know we don't know what to think about which is the _real_ FW490 screen and which (as this one may be) a hold-over from the replacement for the FW390 screen which was discontinued.

For more details on that and other FW screens with links to German reviews with performance specs, Sony part numbers, etc., seach my posts in this thread using the parts numbers from roweraay above.

 

I think the specs of F series is good at all,but I have problem with it`s battery life.
I want to know how good it`s backlite keyboard.
could anyone take a picture from it`s keyboard when it`s backlite on?

 

I got to call non-sense, when I hear or read about it. There is no laptop LCD on the planet that should cost $1300. The European full-Adobe-RGB LED based LCD should sell for around $350, while the dual-CCFL type LCD (I hope Sony is not stupid enough to ask Sharp to design numerous 16.4" Full-HD Dual-CCFL lamp options) should sell for around $250. Regardless of your "spec"-ulations, Derrida, and how baseless I think they are, I personally feel there may have been a few Full-HD screen versions in the FW series........one of them called the "ECO" version and the other one called "X-brite".....the "X-brite" being the dual-CCFL lamp version.

If they charge $1300 and you do pay that price for it, all I can say is there is a sucker born every minute. An entire LAPTOP should not cost the price you quoted for the screen.....$1300, is it ?

 

Hey, I don't create these facts; I just report them. And the forum member who personally saw two EU CTO F's and found that there are two different EU "premium" screen capability sets for the same OS, etc. didn't create his own screens, either.

I provided a link in an earlier post to Sony's definitions of Eco and FullHD and X-Brite from the now-defunct Backstage Website. X-Brite Eco was different from X-Brite FullHD in the resolution, Eco at 1600x900 and FullHD full HD (with some likely additional proprietary screen technology distinguishing the two -- recall that AUO made the ECOs and Sharp the FullHDs). X-Brite was advertized as the coating only.

Further, as for the $1300 screen (plug in VGN-FW490 yourself at https://servicesales.sel.sony.com/ecom/accessories/web/index.jsp), I never said that I or anyone would pay that amount to Sony for it -- but it is so listed with the Sony and Sharp part number LP164WD1-TLA1(F)(S) on multiple FW4 series models at the official Sony site that Joe Bleau provided us. Again, I don't make these things up: I spend a great deal of time researching them and then provide the links to the official Sony Websites for forum members to consult.

Now we have the testimony of To no End that the coating on his FW490 dual-lamp FullHD is very different from the coating on the F screen. And he is not alone in reporting that; others have so noted at the FW threads. If the coating on your screen part referenced in your posting is identical to the coating on your F screen, then it is likely that To no End has the different, more expensive Sharp model of the FullHD size screen. We won't know unless he opens it up and reports the Sharp model number (which I am not recommending, of course, since there are warranty implications for the first 90 days on a refurb purchase).

Not consulting the links and simply assuming that I have made all of this up, rather than distinguishing between what is documented and what is true "spec"-ulation simply wastes your time as well as mine and that of other forum members. If we expect Newbies to do a thread search first, surely advanced forum members can grant each other the same courtesy before "shooting the messenger."

So, tell us: Is the coating on the two screens you have in your possession identical? That's a fact we all want to have!

 

Here is a Youtube video someone has posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbobZTVKw_g

 

Sony doesn't sell the LCDs at $1300 because they genuinely cost $1300 to make, that assertion is absurd. Those LCDs are worth no more than $300, and if they cost a dime more Sony would charge a fortune for the F series. Think about it, it's one of the cheapest, if not the cheapest i7 720qm laptops out there. Everything about it, was done to cut costs.

I doubt they'd do all that cost cutting to stick a $500+ LCD in there.

Besides, it's a crappy TN panel like most laptops have. TN panels are cheap as hell to make, partially because the process is cheap and partially because they have much fewer rejects.

If Sony had instead used a PVA or IPS panel, I could see it costing $500, and even then i doubt this because most quality IPS panels cost under $1000, in some cases well under that figure these days. Dell and Mitsubishi even make a few in the $200-300 range now.

While I agree that the panels sold on 3rd party sites are likely surplus, they are most likely either just as good, or better than the ones that came with our machines. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony took a lot of rejects to come up with a bigger profit margin and passed the "savings" on to you (literally).

 

Derrida, to be quite honest, I am just getting a bit tired of all this prattle. If $1300 is what Sony believes they can get away with, that is what they will charge for it. It does not mean it is worth anywhere close to as much.

As someone who works in a premier diversified industrial, I know that our spares and aftermarket side of the business are the biggest money-makers in terms of sheer margins for us. The OEM part# that is installed onto the brand-new unit, costs $300 (as charged by the supplier). The charge to the customer, when the EXACT same part# is sold as a spare, is $6000+ - believe it or not !

That does not mean that the $6000 part# is encased in Titanium and studded with a diamond or two.....it is the price that we can charge with a straight face and is the EXACT same $300 part# that is installed into our finished unit, when it is sold to the end customer. Of course if the customer is smart enough, they will realize that the part# is made by a 3rd party supplier (from whom we source the parts from) and they can in turn get it for $400 from them.....the EXACT same part# that we charge $6000+ as a spare-part. And believe me, we are not an outlier when it comes to such a practice.....this is pretty much an industry-wide phenomenon.

It is for this very same reason, that manufacturers at times sell brand-new products at a low margin or even at a loss. The intent being to get as much of their products into the market as "installed base". There will be a payback time, when spares will need to be sold and the moolah will be raked in !

Bottomline, these LCD screens whether single-lamp-CCFL or dual-lamp-CCFL or LED-based, have price differences within $150 of each other. Don't get too carried away by some knick-knack that is present in one screen and unavailable in the other. Sony, in case of the F-series in the NA market, has consciously decided to save a few bucks by going with as cheap a Full-HD screen as SHARP could design. By spending an additional $25, they could very well have bought the European full-HD screen to the NA market but they made a conscious/business decision not to do so.

 

That is what I thought too! The LED and CCFL lamp doesnt differ much in term of price, even a small netbook that cost $300 have LED!! And pretty much every new laptop make by other manufactures above 13" is LED. Couldn't really understand why SONY choose CCFL, especially knowing the battery wont hold too much charge, LED should be a bit help there.

The mic fix would prevent your F to enter sleep mode just so you know.

 

That's exactly what I said...multiple times. Derrida doesnt know what he's talking about.

(edit) I also wrote an extensive post about grey market distirbution, "Channel" versus "distirbution network" and the different ways a product can travel, physically and "philosophically" from the manufacturer to the end-user, but I can't find that.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=6154348&postcount=3217

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=6154556&postcount=3224

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=6123545&postcount=2759

 

They probably chose it because of the relative lack of 16.4" LED screens. there just aren't very many laptops with that size, and simple supply-and-demand logic makes it clear that it's more profitable for companies to create LED screens for 13" netbooks (which, really are selling like hotcakes) than 16.4" LED screens. As a result, the LED screens for the F cost more, and it becomes harder for Sony to justify the price of a contract with LCD suppliers, like Sharp, when CCFL technology still produces a high-fidelity images, while still being able to be produced at a relatively inexpensive cost.

EDIT:
Sony probably also has an existing contract from the FW, so why switch? Anyhow, this screen debate has been beaten to death.

 

Precisely and right on the money. Agree totally !

 

I know you're having fun attacking me, but I have never said that Sony's prices were "justified" -- but I have said that we have evidence from To no End that his screen is less glossy than his F screen.

Has roweraay bothered to answer that question: whether his new screen and his old screen have the same coating? Nope. Much more fun to tell everyone how crazy Derrida is.

The fact is that there are two different screen numbers from Sharp for the FW490 series and one of them is nowhere to be found except from Sony.

Now who is it who is "nuts"? The persons who imply that two parts from Sharp with different Sharp part numbers are the same screen (you and we know who you are) or people like 1) To no End and 2) Derrida who have 1) seen two different coatings and 2) believe that Sony has two different Sharp screens with two different Sharp numbers, respectively.

That's what it boils down to: being castigated for daring to maintain the Sony has two different Sharp screens and that they may be different in their performance.

Wow! I should hang my head in shame.... (Not.... ;-))

 

For the record, the screen Sony charges $1300 for is NOT available on the North American F: that's NOT, no, nowhere.

It's on multiple models of the FW4 series which got superb screen reviews (if people only bothered to read the posts where the links to what all of these screens look like are provided).

And the screen that Sony charges $1300 has a Sharp part number that is not on the after-market lists. Got it? That's NOT, no, nowhere.

Them's the facts. You're having a lot of fun shooting the messenger. Try dealing with the facts of the Sharp part numbers so many have been pleased to rely upon on this thread. And with the testimony of those who have SEEN two versions of the European Premium screen, who have SEEN two different types of glossy anti-reflective coating. They're nuts, you say? Fine. As the Native Americans say: Think what you want to think -- YOU have to live with your thoughts.

I think I'll stop doing all this research. Most of it is already up, anyway. And these snipes are proof that those who gripe haven't bothered to consult the links.

No problem. You're on your own! Enjoy....

 

Hm,are making LED and LCD screen so much different?I thought they are almost the same, only the inverter and the type of lamp that they used. With a big player like SONY, ordering thousands and thousands of 16.4" LED screen wont be any issue for any LCD manufacture especially if SONY is one of the manufacture and they have a factory together with SHARP. I think someone in upper management from SONY get super greedy and just want to cut cost and were talking minimal cut, probably $40-50/screen so they can pocket more $$ which actually doesn't turn as the plan since a lot of people complaining and returning the product. That person need to get fired, sacrifice quality doesn't always profitable.

 

And I said CLEARLY that that was because the screen ran out or was discontinued (because of prodcution costs? - maybe as high as $200) before the model was ended, thus there were no surplus FW490 screens left to hit the grey market... The grey market is dependant upon SURPLUS components, those that exceed contract requirements, which because of production efficiencies nearly always happens. IF this unit had entered the grey market it would be maybe $350, $400, certainly not $1300...this screen is sold from Sony at a marked-up price just like all their other screens. Why is this point so hard to get across to you??

Sony knows they have your tail in a vice, that's why they overcharge..

 

One point that has not yet been brought up.. I believe the three-LED RGB screens have software management of the white point, which means each LED set has to be hardware-connected to the motherboard, and also maybe the BIOS has to address the display.. This would make it incompatible with motherboards built for CCFL or WLED.

 

I do not misunderstand that point; it is you who deliberately misunderstand my point: that that screen has specifc attributes which have resulted in its being considered matte, even though it has a glossy coating -- that it is different. There may be other attributes as well which differ. What is mind-boggling is the insistence on this thread by some that all 16.4" screens are basically the same, differing only in backlight (CCFL or LED) and, if the former, number of lamps.

P.S. No one has _my_ tail in a vice, not even you, MelodyMaster!

Ha!